Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rugby School Bill [Lords].

As amended, considered.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Buckhaven and Leven Gas Commission Order Confirmation Bill (by Order).

Consideration deferred till Monday next.

GIRVAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Girvan Water," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered upon Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MURDER OF FIELD-MARSHAL SIR H. WILSON, M.P.

POLICE PROTECTION OF LIFE.

Colonel GRETTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Lord Privy Seal if a statement can be made, and an assurance given, that vigorous and effective steps are being taken to preserve the lives of British subjects in Ireland and in England? Will the Government move the Adjournment of the House on Monday, in order that the question of the security of life in both countries may be considered?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): Every possible step has been taken for the protection of life. As regards a discussion, as the House knows, Tuesday has been allocated for a discussion of Irish affairs. I think it would meet the wishes of the House if we take that Debate on Monday, instead of waiting for Tuesday, and postpone the discussion on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill till Tuesday. I propose to put down a Vote in Supply for Monday, and if, when we get into Committee of Supply, the Chairman's ruling upon the scope of the Debate should make it impossible to give that width to the discussion which under the circumstances the House desires, I will move the Adjournment of the House in order to allow the fullest latitude to the House. We shall be glad to give any information then that it is proper for us to make public. The House, may, perhaps, wish me to take the opportunity to add whatever I can to their knowledge of this matter.
There is no further information to report in regard to the assassination. The accused men will be brought before the magistrate this morning. In the meantime, as I am advised, I do not think it is desirable to make any further statement. Certain raids and searches took place last night, and, I may say, a considerable number of places were visited and searched. Sixteen people were detained—fifteen men and one woman. Some arms were discovered, and some incendiary tubes. As regards the condition of the wounded constables and the wounded civilian, I am thankful to say that all are progressing favourably. No operation has been found necessary in the case of Police-Constable Marsh, and it is confidently expected that he will recover.

Colonel GRETTON: May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will call for all the reports from Scotland Yard, and give instructions that action shall be taken upon those reports where it is justified?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly, Sir. Immediately the House rose yesterday, some of us were in conference with the officials of Scotland Yard—the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, other Ministers, and myself. Immediate steps were taken, and the searches of last
night were the result of the orders then issued. The moment I can leave the House, with the Home Secretary, we are going to resume the conference to-day.

Colonel ASHLEY: Why did not these searches take place before the murder? Why are measures only being taken now, after one of our most distinguished Members has been killed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I put it to both of my hon. and gallant Friends and the House at large as to whether, as we are to have a discussion on Monday, it is not better to leave these matters of public anxiety to be gone into in the discussion, when they can be fully debated better than by question and answer this morning.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is it not a fact that recently, owing to the so-called improved relations between Ireland and this country, instructions were given to Scotland Yard that they need not concern themselves about these affairs as to which, until recently, they have been making reports to the Home Office?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no instructions of that kind were given. But undoubtedly it is the case that, owing to what was thought to be the improved conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only by the Government"]—the police protection was removed, and, if I may say so, from Ministers as well as from certain others who had previously been under police protection.

Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the evident interest of the House in what took place yesterday, would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to move the Adjournment now, in order that we may know something of what is going on?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would urge upon the House not to press that Motion. I do not wish to withhold anything from the House, but I think that Ministers should be in a better position to make the statement that the House desires on Monday than we can at this moment. As I say, there is at this moment a resumed conference with the Police Authorities, to which I propose to go as soon as I can, and I think that we could make a fuller and more satisfactory statement to the House on Monday than is possible at the present moment.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Provisional Government has been asked to trace the antecedents of these murderers, and whether they have also been asked to arrest the leaders of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, who are their friends, and the people who send these murderers here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, this is just one of the matters about which I should ask to be excused from making any statement to-day.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Is it the intention to call into the Conference, which is just going to be held, Sir Basil Thomson, whose splendid activities in tracking down the Sinn Fein gunmen and Republican Brotherhood in this city led to his dismissal?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has no right to make that observation.

Sir J. REMNANT: Yes, I have.

Mr. R. McNEILL: He has every right.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We shall call into consultation anybody who we think can assist us; but first, and foremost, those who are primarily responsible. I do not want to make a contrast between one police régime and another, but my hon. Friend must have a short memory, indeed, if he does not remember the series of violent outrages and murders which took place in London in the time of the police officer whom he mentions, without a single person being arrested.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: In making inquiries from Scotland Yard, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what results followed the report which I myself made to the Special Branch in regard to the landing of arms?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I will certainly inquire about that.

Mr. STEWART: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these men came over from Ireland, and whether there is any supervision at all in regard to passengers passing between Ireland and this country?

An HON. MEMBER: There has been none.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say when they came to this country, but I think I shall be right in saying that they have been in this country for a tong time.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Wednesday week!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows more than I do, and if he has evidence that these men came over on Wednesday week, I shall be much obliged if he will give it to me as soon as he can.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I will put down a question on Monday. I will deal with it then.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall be obliged if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give it to me now, before I leave the House.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the service revolvers found on the murderers were part of the British arms handed over to the Provisional Government?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: On Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a clear statement that Mr. Michael Collins, within the last two weeks, was not in direct contact with these murderers?

Sir W. DAVISON: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. RAWLINSON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to allaying public anxiety, consider the desirability of the discussion taking place today? Does not that consideration outweigh any advantage in the discussion taking place on Monday? Otherwise we shall have a. Press discussion on this matter between now and Monday, and this is the place where information ought to be given, and where we ought to thrash out the case of national and Imperial importance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I think the House will see the difficulty in which I am placed by the questions put to me. I have not the material to answer these questions at the present moment. I hope by Monday we shall be more fully informed, and be able to deal with matters to which we can give no answer at the present moment. I trust the House will think that not unreasonable. It is quite
clear that at the earliest possible moment there should be a useful and full discussion, and I think Monday—when a large measure of information will be available—that discussion should take place is the earliest day that would fulfil the conditions.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when police protection, was removed, and upon whose advice such protection was removed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I could not give the exact date, but it was removed on the advice of the police authorities, when they thought it was no longer required.

Major Sir HENRY NORMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the statement which has appeared in the Press is correct, that some changes are to be made with regard to the admission of strangers to this House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is one of the matters to be considered, but we cannot say at the moment.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question The police must know whether these military revolvers found on these men were part of the arms handed over to the Provisional Government by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a matter upon which I can give any answer at all at the present time. I do not think they were. I do not know whether these arms bear individual numbers which will enable them to be identified.

Sir J. REMNANT: Are the police to be armed now, or will the right hon. Gentleman take this matter into consideration at the conference which is going to be held, seeing that people are liable to be murdered every day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The House will remember that the question of arming the police has more than once come up, that the police themselves have never wished to carry arms, and have thought themselves to be better protected among the community when the community know that they do not carry arms. But, of course, these special circumstances of the present time must lead to a reconsideration of the question, although I do not necessarily say that we shall reverse the practice.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the thanks of the community are tendered to the gallant and unarmed men and women who assisted in the arrest of these men?

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the Prime Minister is not present?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I will. It is because the question is addressed to me, and because the Prime Minister is engaged at this moment in a conference dealing with this very matter. If the hon. Member will permit me to say so, I have the honour to be the Leader of the House, and my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway (Colonel Gretton) addressed the question to me. I think it is my duty, whether the Prime Minister be present or not, to deal with matters concerning the conduct of business. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) is engaged at the moment in a conference on these very matters.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does not the Leader of the House think that in a matter of grave national importance of t his kind the Prime Minister should be here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I think if there is someone here competent to answer for the Government, the Prime Minister is more fruitfully occupied presiding over the conference to which I have referred.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the police on special duty outside Sir Henry Wilson's house were unarmed, in spite of the fact that his life was threatened, and whether, in view of what has happened, the head of the branch responsible has tendered his resignation or whether he will be required to do so?

The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The police outside Sir Henry Wilson's house were unarmed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] The police were unarmed by their own desire. I would remind the House that arms are provided at every police station, and the police take them when they choose on special occasions. But it has not been thought right to compel the police to carry arms, if they do not wish to do so. We have no information, either from the Northern Irish
Government or from any other source, of any threat on the life of Sir Henry Wilson. No one has tendered his resignation, and it is not intended that anyone should be required to do so.

Colonel ASHLEY: Were there any police on special duty outside Sir Henry Wilson's house?

Mr. SHORTT: No; there were no police on special duty at all.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were police, at any rate, in the vicinity between Lord Carson's house and Sir Henry Wilson's house, and that they were unarmed? When I put the question down, I understood that there were police on special duty in plain clothes, who ought to have been armed, and it was in reference to them that I put the question. But apparently they had been withdrawn. I ask if these special detectives had been withdrawn from Sir Henry Wilson's house, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there was a warning, which I have seen myself, from Scotland Yard within the last few weeks?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of the latter part of the question. I do not think that Sir Henry Wilson was ever specially guarded.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as Chief of the General Staff, Sir Henry Wilson had special men looking after him?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, while he was Chief of the General Staff, but not since he came to this House.

Sir F. BANBURY: Were the police armed?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot say without making inquiry, because no policeman is bound to carry arms, and they may or may not choose to take weapons with them.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman really considered that part of his answer to the effect that no warning has ever been given to Scotland Yard, or that Scotland Yard itself had not already, some three weeks ago, warned Sir Henry Wilson's friends that he was in extreme danger; and, in view of that fact, how does that part of his answer conform to the facts?

Mr. SHORTT: I have no such information, and, indeed, it is absolutely contrary to the information that was given to me last night, when this terrible occurrence was being investigated.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: As it was obvious that Sir Henry Wilson was in great danger of his life, in view of the action he had taken, and as the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, will he consider the propriety of resigning himself?

Mr. R. McNEILL: Arising out of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer in which he said there.were no police on special duty, I want to ask if Sir Henry Wilson was one of the men whom the Government thought required no protection, because of the policy of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] May I have an answer to that question, because I have some information on that point from Sir Henry Wilson and other people?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not aware of any such reason.

Mr. McNEILL: Did the Home Secretary not write a letter himself to Lord Carson to the same effect a short time ago?

Mr. SHORTT: I am not ware of it.

Mr. McNEILL: I have seen the letter.

Mr. INSKIP: The last information which was given us was that last night the right hon. Gentleman had definitely received a report from an official of Scotland Yard that no warning had been received with regard to Sir Henry Wilson. If that be so, will he say who the official of Scotland Yard was who made that report?

Mr. SHORTT: My information was that Scotland Yard had no information that Sir Henry Wilson's life was threatened. Scotland Yard receives an enormous number of anonymous letters about all sorts of people.

Mr. McNEILL: Have they no common sense?

Captain Viscount CURZON: With regard to the Debate on Monday, will the matter be placed before the House in such a way that it will be possible for the House to record its vote upon the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will certainly be possible to do that in Supply, if we can take the discussion which the House desires in Supply, or on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Sir WILLIAM RAEBURN: If it be not politic to arm the police, would it not be well to keep some fire-arms in the police stations?

Sir J. REMNANT: They are kept there.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Yesterday there seems to have been no attempt to use these arms to bring the murderers down, though one would have thought that there would have been.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arms are kept in all the police stations.

Mr. G. MURRAY: Can the Home Secretary say when police protection was removed? How long ago is it since it was removed? The Leader of the House says he does not know.

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I cannot give the exact date, but it was some weeks ago. It was removed from everyone, I think, except the Chief Secretary for Ireland—probably about a month ago.

Mr. MURRAY: Upon whose advice was it done? Was it upon the advice of one particular person at Scotland Yard?

Mr. SHORTT: Oh, no.

Mr. MURRAY: Or after consultation with yourself, or how was it done?

Mr. SHORTT: It was done on the advice of all those at Scotland Yard who had any knowledge of the subject, and, after careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that the protection was no longer necessary. It was removed from everyone of us.

Mr. LYLE: Will the Home Secretary, in view of what he has heard to-day in the House, make further inquiries from the police authorities as to whether he has made a mistake, or been misinformed, as to a warning having been given?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course, the first thing I shall do when I leave this House will be to ask about these suggested warnings. I know nothing of them.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman consulted the police authorities, and consented to the withdrawal of police protection?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, and I consulted my colleagues, too.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman, from this moment forward, take care that eve person whom the Government regard as a "distinguished person" in relation to this matter shall be carefully guarded, lest there be reprisals for the arrest of these men?

Captain S. WILSON: They regard only themselves as "distinguished."

Mr. SHORTT: Yes; of course, the guard will be renewed.

Sir H. NIELD: I mean for every distinguished person in relation to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Sir RHYS WILLIAMS, Baronet, K.C., D.S.O., for the County of Oxford (Banbury Division).

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Government of the Sudan Loan (Amendment) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to agricultural holdings in England and Wales." [Agricultural Holdings Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to agricultural holdings in Scotland." [Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company; to provide for the vesting in the said company of the undertakings of the North Metropolitan Electrical Power Distribution Company, Limited, and the dissolution of that company; and for other purposes." [North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Norfolk Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Taw and Torridge Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Towy Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

London Electric and City and South London Railway Companies Bill,

Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — GAMING BILL [Lords].

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. CAUTLEY: I do not see the Solicitor-General or any Law Officer here, but I should like to ask one or two questions about this Bill. While strongly approving of the Bill, I want to ask what is the meaning of the last sentence—
No action for the recovery of money under the said Section shall be entertained in any Court.
I am not aware quite what is the meaning of the phrase "entertaining an action." The legal phrase is not known to me, and I should like to know whether it means that no action is to be brought in the future, or what it actually does mean. A large number of actions have been commenced under the existing law to recover money that has been lost on bets and paid by cheques. These actions are in various stages of their procedure. They have got various distances on the course for trial. There is no provision at all for what is to be done with the actions that are now pending. It seems to me very undesirable in these days that those people who have started actions should be able to recover, contrary to what at the trials is the existing law, since the Act of Parliament under which they are suing has been repealed. I should be glad to have answers to these questions.

Sir EDMUND BARTLEY-DENNISS: I very much regret to have to take up even a few minutes of the time of the House, and divert the thoughts of Members from the calamity which oppresses us all. I cannot, however, allow this Bill to pass the Third Reading without making some kind of protest against the way in which it has been brought in, and the little consideration which has been given to it, either in the other place or in this House. This is a private Member's Bill, but the subject is one of general public policy, and it is not, to my mind, a fitting subject for a private Member's Bill. I sympathise entirely
with the object of the Noble Lord who introduced it in another place. If he had confined his Bill to the object he had in mind, namely, to preventing people who have already paid their cheques to the bookmakers from recovering the money back, I should not only not have had a word to say against the Bill, but I should also have welcomed it and thought that it was a mere matter of common honesty and justice. But the Bill goes very much further than that, and reverses the policy which has been in existence now for nearly 90 years, which was adopted in 1835 to deal with what was then a very serious evil, namely, gaming in all its forms, has been continued unquestioned up to the present time, and which, but for a decision in the Courts of law with regard to bookmakers' winnings and cheques that are paid to them in respect of those winnings, the House would never have thought of reversing in any way. This Bill—which is a little Bill of one Clause—entirely reverses the general public policy which has been pursued for so long, and which was brought in to redress a great social evil, which social evil continues in different but undiminished forms to the present day. London is full of gaming houses at the present time—of night houses where cards are played and where young men are tempted to their ruin, very often to the danger of great loss and the crippling, if not the ruin, of their relations. Women, as I am reminded, are said to be taking the same means of getting money for nothing, for that is what gambling comes to. It is, I am afraid, inherent in human nature that certain people should be greedy and should endeavour, whether by horse racing, or by card playing, or by gambling on the Stock Exchange, to make money for nothing. That being so, it is necessary for this country to deal with the evil now as it was in 1835.
The objection I have to this Bill is that, instead of conveying the simple statement that a cheque given for a gambling debt, when paid, shall be incapable of being made a subject of any action to recover the money so paid in respect of betting on horse races, the Bill goes to the full extent of repealing the whole Section of an Act of Parliament which is vital to the public interests of this country. I do not intend to do more now than to point out to the House what I believe to be the effect of the Bill. The reason I am
compelled to do that is this. I was a member of the Committee which sat on the Bill upstairs, and there I raised the question of the absence of any legal officer of the Crown who could explain to the Committee what the real effect of the Bill was. The learned Lord Advocate was there—in what capacity I do not know—and when I appealed to him, he, with his usual courtesy, said he would under no circumstances care to give any opinion on the matter of English law, although he was quite prepared to deal with questions of Scottish law. Therefore the members of the Committee were totally unprotected so far as legal assistance was necessary in the consideration of this Measure. It was quite clear that the Committee upstairs did not understand the scope of the Bill. Under Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1835, which this Bill seeks to repeal in toto, if people give bills or notes or mortgages, including equitable charges, which are simple things, that can be written on a half sheet of notepaper, for a gaming debt of any kind, whether in horse racing, or card playing, or Stock Exchange gambling in differences, after the money is actually paid it can be recovered. But this Bill says that, under no circumstances, even in the case of mortgages, can such money, once having been paid, be recovered.
There is this practical difference to be borne in mind between money paid by by cheque and that conveyed under a mortgage. If a man gives a cheque, he usually has at the bank a sufficient balance to meet it and he can afford to pay it without crippling himself. But if he gives a mortgage on his property, he may in a few minutes at a gaming table, cripple himself, his family and his heirs for ever. These things have happened in times gone by. They happen even now, and to say that the evil that the Act of Parliament passed in 1835 was intended to remove should no longer be prevented and that the Act itself should be reversed by this short Measure, is to advocate a course which ought not to be adopted. Had the Bill been confined, as originally intended, to cheques given to bookmakers by men who had lost money in betting on horses, I would have welcomed it but, as a matter of fact, it goes a great deal too far. This is a matter of grave public policy, and I for one feel that the Bill should have seen brought in after due consideration by the
Government itself on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. Neither of the Law Officers of the Crown is here to-day and, as a result, we are completely in the dark as far as the legal aspect of the Measure is concerned.
Let me tell the House what happened in another place. The Bill was not printed until the morning of the day on which the Second Reading was taken, and scarcely anyone in the Upper Chamber knew anything about it. It was put down for Committee the next day and no opporwas afforded of giving notice of Amendments to it. What will be possible under this Bill will be that a man who is gambling may either stake his title deeds on the table and hand them over to his opponents should he lose, or he may, by writing on a half-sheet of notepaper, give a charge on money to which he is entitled. Under the existing law such a charge would not be effective, even if the charge had been assigned, and surely nobody desires that it should be. But once the money has been paid by the loser then, under this Bill, the man will be unable to recover it; whereas under the operation of the existing law the transaction can be set aside and the money recovered. We all have heard what happens in these gaming houses in London at night. Personally I have no knowledge of them, but there is no doubt that a good deal of drinking goes on, and young men are encouraged to drink while those with whom they are gambling keep sober and only pretend to drink. I remember one particular case which came to my own knowledge years ago. I was told by a man who was a regular card player that he had an arrangement with the club steward that the drink supplied to him should be merely a coloured liquor intended to represent whisky, while the men with whom he was playing were supplied with whisky itself. Large sums of money were often gained under similar circumstances, and I submit that they ought to be recoverable. This Bill, however, will prevent that, and will place no obstacle in the way of a man mortgaging the whole of his property.
What was the origin of this Bill? A gentleman named Dey, who made bets with a bookmaker, had lost £852 which he paid by cheque, and the cheque was duly honoured. Afterwards he made other bets with the same bookmaker and won, but the bookmaker then refused to pay.
Thereupon Dey brought an action against the bookmaker to recover the £852 which he had paid by cheque. It was a bit of rough justice, and he succeeded in getting his money back again. It was a meritorious case so far as Dey was concerned. Afterwards another case cropped up in which the same principle was involved, and it was taken to the House of Lords, who confirmed the decision in the former case, and in consequence of that case this Bill was brought in to rectify the state of affairs that the litigation had brought about. One result of the legal decisions was that a large number of people who had always been paid their winnings by the bookmakers sought to recover from the bookmakers losses they had made and which they had paid by cheque. It was admitted that that was a scandal which ought not to be allowed. I myself did not put down any Amendment to the Bill, because I felt it dealt with a matter of general public policy, on which the best legal knowledge which this House possessed should be at the service of the Members. In my opinion the Law Officers of the Crown ought to have carefully considered such a Bill before it was brought in I tried to get the Committee upstairs agree to make some representation in favour of the Government providing hon. Members with legal assistance, and I maintain that such legal advice is necessary even now, for I doubt if there are many Members in the House who understand the full significance of this Bill. Just to meet one hard case, which we all have admitted ought to be met, a Bill is brought in which reverses the whole position, whether in regard to card-playing, horse-racing, Stock Exchange differences, or any other form of gambling. It repeals the section, and, furthermore, at the end says,
No action for the recovery of money under the said Section shall be entertained in any Court.
My hon. and learned Friend who opened the debate has stated that large numbers of actions are pending in the Courts to recover such moneys, and some of those who have brought those actions may be in the same position as Mr. Dey, that is to say, may be only seeking to recover their money because some bookmaker has failed to pay when he has lost. It would be very hard if they could not succeed, but this seems to me to be, and I should like to know from some legal
authority in the House whether it is, retrospective. It does not say that no action shall be "brought" in any Court for the recovery of money. That would have protected people who have already brought actions. It says that no action shall be "entertained," and, therefore, as soon as this Bill becomes an Act, it can be said that any such action can be no longer entertained, thus, I suppose, putting an end to those legal and rightful claims, though some of them may be mean and paltry, which are already before the judicature of this country and which ought not to be swept away by a short, ill-considered and rushed Bill, brought in without the weight of Government assistance. The Bill ought not to be retrospective.
I thought it my duty to bring these considerations before the House. People who bet with bookmakers and give cheques for their bets, can afford, as a rule, to do it, and they ought to pay their debts. But card-playing at night, in gaming houses in London and elsewhere, is different, and many cases of serious trouble have been caused to young men by these night houses. This Bill allows a man to gamble away his whole fortune by giving a note across the table—a bill of exchange, or a cheque, or an equitable mortgage on a half sheet of paper. The Bill ought to be limited to what is really the object of the Noble Lord who brought it in. If the House chooses to pass it to-day, it will do so with its eyes open to the consequences, so far as I can point them out. Personally, I think the House ought not to proceed further in the matter until it has proper advice. If it does not choose to pass this Bill to-day, the Government might easily bring in a one-Clause Bill to deal with cheques and cheques only, so that this system of paying bets by cheques, which is extremely convenient both to those who bet and to bookmakers, should be put right, and upon such a Bill I am sure we should be all agreed.

Captain LOSEBY: I should like to remind the House of the circumstances in which, as I believe I am correct in saying, Section 2 of the Gaming Act became law. At the time when that Section was passed, in 1835, money paid by cash was recoverable if that cash was paid in respect of a gaming transaction, but the same rule did not apply in regard to negotiable securities, which are prac-
tically identical with cash, in that they pass from hand to hand. The Section was introduced to put cash on the same basis as negotiable securities. At a subsequent date, I think in 1845, payments made by cash were made irrecoverable, but it would appear that by some omission negotiable securities were not placed upon the same basis, and the necessary legislation was not introduced. It is common knowledge and common morality that where a man pays by notes in respect of a gaming transaction, those notes should not be recoverable, but where he pays by other forms of negotiable instruments they should be recoverable. It appears to me that this is merely commonsense legislation to rectify an obvious omission. It has nothing to do with gambling or with the morality of gambling. Certain circumstances were cited by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley Denniss) in which men laid money, but in those cases it would appear to me to be clearly recoverable as the law stands, in spite of this particular Bill. It is important that the House should recollect that the main purpose of the Bill is to put negotiable instruments which pass from hand to hand as cash on the same basis as cash. It is necessary in the interests of ordinary morality, and I hope it will go through without opposition.

Mr. SIMM: I wish to support the protest made by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss). He began by objecting to this Measure as being far too limited in dealing with a very large subject. With that I entirely agree in its essence. It is, of course, a piece of class legislation. It affects those who pay by cheques. But gambling or gaming in this country is just as prevalent among people who pay in small cash as among those who pay in large or small cheques. I think that both the nation and this House are playing the hypocrite with a subject of this character in not being prepared to see to it that persons engaged in gambling or taking bets are registered as such, and that only such persons are allowed to carry on those operations. Those who have any acquaintances with racecourses know that upon every racecourse now there is a whole body of people, most of them of the worst sort, who go there with a pound or two, get a tidy sum of money from investors there, and then slip away without paying. I
remember that on one occasion, when I happened to be at the Derby, I saw one bookmaker who made a very fine show, and who was saying that he had a place in Holborn and a carriage and motor car. He was doing a large business—it was just at the end of the War—with ex-service men, Australians and so on; and at the end of the second race, when people came for their winnings, he had got away with something like £2,000. I do not see why, when we are dealing with a subject of this character, some real effort should not be made to clean up the racecourse of this country. It could be easily done. Nearly all racecourses now are enclosed places, and, if the police were not called upon to do it, I think the racecourse company ought to be compelled to see that every man who makes bets there is registered for the purpose.
I may go one point further. The Measure was passed to prevent what is called ready-money betting, but the effect has not been to prohibit betting nor has it done it in the slightest degree. There is more gambling done to-day, not only among men, but even among women and children, down even to coppers in all sorts of places, in places which are not put up for gambling purposes. All sorts of holes and corners are being used by bookmakers for the purpose. The bookmakers want to register. They want the job made as clean as possible. It is bad enough to be robbed by an Englishman or a Scotsman, but it is even worse to be robbed by a Jew, who may not even be naturalised, and I object very strongly to these people, who are the very lowest human types, being allowed to infest our racecourses to the extent they do. The racecourse ought to be as clean as the cricket field. I fear I have gone outside the scope of the Measure, but I have got my protest in, and I hope the matter will be taken up seriously because gambling is a serious matter and we should gain as a people by passing a Bill of this character, which is a just Measure, and we should get a grip of the wider problem of the small gambling which is going on to a marked extent.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not quite follow the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley Denniss) with regard to the bookmaker in the motor car and the carriage, who got the money of a large number of ex-service men, amounting to £3,000.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: That was a guess.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not suppose my hon. and learned Friend was engaged with the bookmaker, and knew what was in the bag. At any rate it was a large sum of money. The Bill does not affect that in any kind of way, because the money paid under these circumstances would be paid in cash or in Treasury notes, and therefore would not come under the operation of the Bill. I was very much in favour of the Bill, as I understood its object was to enact that a person who paid a gambling debt by cheque should not be able to recover his money. I do not think there can be anyone in the House who does not think that is a right and proper thing to do. But now I understand that the Bill goes a great deal further than that. I gathered that my hon. and learned Friend was a member of the Committee, on which there was no Law Officer of the Crown, and consequently they were unable to obtain that legal advice which they were 12 N. clearly entitled to. The Law Officers are more conspicuous by their absence than by their presence, both in the House and in Committee. If the Bill goes as far as my hon. and learned Friend says it does, I are inclined to think the proper course is to adjourn the discussion in order that we may really know what it is we are doing. I have the impression that if it is desired to move to recommit the Bill on the Third Reading, it must be done at once and cannot be done during the discussion.

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice of a Motion of that kind must be given.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is of what I was afraid. Supposing any hon. Member moved the Adjournment of the Debate, would it be possible then to put down a Motion to recommit the Bill? That would give the Government an opportunity of having a Law Officer present, and if it were necessary to alter the wording of the Bill in order to limit it to that which everyone really desires. namely, that payment by cheque should be the same as payment by cash, we might have an opportunity to amend the Bill and get it through at once without the delay which would be necessitated if it was thought advisable to bring in a new Bill. If I should be in order in doing
it, I would move the adjournment of the Debate if the course I suggest could be followed.

Mr. SPEAKER: The trouble in doing that would be that if the right hon. Baronet moved that the Debate be now adjourned—I presume the Home Office is prepared to answer for the Government on the point—it would not be in order on that Motion for such a reply to be given. Would not the best way be to hear what the Government have to say, and then probably some other hon. Member might move?

Sir F. BANBURY: That would be the best course to pursue.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): This is purely a legal point, and I cannot expect my right hon. Friend to accept my view on a legal matter as final. The points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley Denniss) have been gone into; the whole Bill has been carefully examined by the legal authorities, and I understand the fears entertained by my hon. and learned Friend are not justified. In the House of Lords the Bill had the advantage of being introduced by a most distinguished lawyer, and he secured the support of all the other legal Members. There is another point. Undoubtedly the Bill is intended to remove what everyone agrees is a great defect in our system —a most unfair state of affairs.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: Does it not go further than that?

Sir J. BAIRD: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Under-Secretary for the Home Office has told us that this is a private Member's Bill. I do not want to interfere with the passage of the Bill, but I would point out that if the Debate be adjourned now, and the promoters of the Bill put it down for next Friday, it would come on as first Order next Friday, and nothing would be lost. What would have happened would be that we should have had an opportunity of ascertaining the effect of the Bill, and, if necessary, it could be re-committed at once.

Sir J. BAIRD: The right hon. Baronet is far more familiar with the practices of this House than most of us, and he will
agree that at this stage of the Session a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

Sir F. BANBURY: It could be put down as the first Order next Friday.

Sir J. BAIRD: I wonder if my right hon. Friend would readily consent to that course, if it were proposed in regard to a Bill of which he was the promoter.

Sir F. BANBURY: This Bill has been through the Lords, and will not need to go to them.

Sir J. BAIRD: There has been an Amendment made in Committee upstairs, and it will be necessary for the Bill to go back to the Lords.

Sir F. BANBURY: In that case, they can deal only with the Amendments which are referred to them.

Sir J. BAIRD: It is a Private Member's Bill, and if the promoters desire to adopt the course recommended by the right hon. Baronet, it is for them to do so. Here is an attempt to remedy a very great wrong. The matter has been very carefully considered by the legal authorities of the Government and by legal Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss) raised this point in Committee, and at the time, although there was no Law Officer of the Crown present, we had the opinion, in a lay capacity, of the Lord Advocate, who did not think there was substance in the hon. Baronet's fears.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: He distinctly refused to rule on a question of English law.

Sir J. BAIRD: He refused to rule against this Bill.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: Or to advise. There is no doubt about that.

Sir J. BAIRD: It is for the House to decide whether the Bill should proceed, as there is no Law Officer present. Having regard to the importance of the subject, and that this Bill has been very carefully drafted by competent legal authorities, I hope my right hon. Friend will not persist in this course.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
No one will under-rate the importance of this Bill, and on that account it is a matter for regret that there is not a Law Officer of the Crown present. What is the position? This Bill seeks to make payment by cheque equivalent to payment by cash, but it has been suggested that it goes much further than that. What we have to ascertain is whether, in fact, the Bill does go further than that. If this Debate be now adjourned, the Bill will be put down for next Friday, and I understand from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), than whom no one in this House is more cognisant with procedure, that the Bill will come on as first Order next Friday.

Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly. I guarantee that, if it be put down now.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: If it be put down for next Friday, it will come on as first Order. I agree that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, and if by the Adjournment of the Debate we should lose the bird in hand, I agree that it would not be a good, proper, or wise-thing to do. In spite of what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has said, I do not think there is any fear of the bird in hand being lost. If there were any such danger I would not move the Adjournment of the Debate, but, in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss), and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and believing that this Bill can be obtained next Friday after the points in question have been gone into, I have pleasure in moving the Adjournment.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Motion.
It is inadvisable on a Friday afternoon, in a thin House, to allow a Measure of this sort to go through without very grave consideration. It is quite clear that there is a divergence of opinion between legal authorities as to the full extent of the Bill. The hon. Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss), who is a distinguished lawyer, has expressed doubt as to the scope of the Measure, and in reading the Bill myself it seems to me that there is no meaning in words if this Bill does not repeal the Act of William IV, which made irrecoverable certain money given for gambling debts. The hon. Member for Oldham has said that if a
man across the gambling table gives an equitable mortgage, that is not recoverable if this Bill be passed. This is a serious state of things, and the Bill ought not to be allowed to go through the House unless we have a definite assurance from the Law Officers of the Crown that that is not so. If it is so, we must have an assurance from the Government that they will take the necessary steps to put the matter right. It may be right to allow a man to charge his property by going to the family lawyer or any other lawyer and drawing up a proper deed, because the presumption is that the lawyer who drew up the deed would see that his client was sober at the time, whereas if a man gives a mortgage across the gambling table there is no guarantee that he is sober when he gives that equitable mortgage.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree that this Bill does undoubtedly more than legalise payment by cheque. It does not torch the question of the validity of the mortgage. You can set aside an equitable mortgage to-morrow if you had not paid upon it. It is only if the mortgage has been executed and the money has been paid upon it that you cannot re-open the transaction four or five years hence. There is no particular harm in the Bill in its present form. What we are doing is quite harmless. I admit that this goes further than the House of Lords decision. The House of Lords simply dealt with the question of money paid under a cheque, but by repealing Section 2 of the Gaming Act, 1835, by this Bill, we say that where money has been paid under either a cheque or an equitable mortgage or any other document, it has been paid beyond control, and that you cannot recover the money from the man who has got it. At present you can. It would not be in order to enter into the merits of the Bill, but the evil which it seeks to set right is one as to which all sections of the House are agreed. This House has never fairly faced this question of gaming. No one knows the evils of gambling more than I. It does more harm, perhaps, even than drinking, though I could never see the sense of not taxing it and not making more money out of it. But merely because this Bill secures an ordinary act of common justice to people who are engaged in gambling, I cannot see why it should
not be passed. It is simply a Bill which says that when you have paid a bet you shall not get it back again.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: Would you say that card gambling at night time is in a different position?

Mr. RAWLINSON: Not being either a gambler or a card player myself, I will accept the fact that all gambling, either by cards or by bets, is very similar. This Bill gives no right to recover the money which you have lost at cards. All it says is that if you have lost money at cards and given a cheque one night you can set aside the cheque next morning, but if it has been passed through the bank and paid you cannot, six weeks or six months hence, get that money back. It seems to me an immoral thing that you should do so. If you have given an equitable mortgage for a gambling debt., then some time afterwards, when the money has been paid, the executor is not to be able to open that transaction three or four months hence, and to be bound to re-open the transaction. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) paid at once his gambling debts, as I am sure he would do, by cheque, all I have got to do at the present moment, if I am his executor, is to bring an action to recover the amount, a thing which the dead man would not wish me to do. Last year I introduced a Bill on this matter, much better drawn than this one, of course, which, although I am very much against hasty legislation, I tried to get the Government to take up, but the Government did not take it up, and therefore I think that we should take advantage of this Bill now that we have got it, and say that when people have given a security for money, of course, they could set it aside, but when they have paid up on that security they shall not have a right to recover that money.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Then it would be possible for the mortgage to be given and the money lost and paid over the gambling table in the one evening?

Mr. RAWLINSON: If the person has the money in his pocket.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: He may give a cheque.

Mr. RAWLINSON: If he has given the mortgage to the man, is not that the
same as borrowing the money from the man?

Mr. CAUTLEY: What about the assignee of the mortgage?

Mr. RAWLINSON: It applies equally as to the case of a cheque. When a document is handed over it makes very little difference whether you write out a cheque or a mortgage. The policy ought to be the same in the case of one as in that of the other. The risk in the case of this Bill is so very slight and the evil to be met is so great that I hope the House will not take the Motion for Adjournment.

Sir F. BANBURY: The vast majority of Members of this House are in favour of the judgment of the House of Lords, but this Bill goes beyond that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted. The only result of the Motion for the Adjournment would be that this Bill would be first on the Order Paper on Friday next. The Law Officers would have had the opportunity of discussing the matter between then and now, and the Bill would simply be passed one week later than if we passed it now. We know that it is the custom for, say, three or four adventurers to get hold of somebody and take him into their flat and rook him there, and if what the hon. Member (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss) says is correct, that man might part with the whole of his money and not be able to recover any of it. In those circumstances the loss of one week cannot be compared with the bigger loss which may accrue if we do not get proper advice before we pass this Bill.

Captain LOSEBY: If hon. Members will look at the actual words of this Bill, they will be completely re-assured. There is no kind of difficulty in the matter. It is proposed simply to repeal Section 2 of the Gaming Act, which makes money paid —not money to be paid—to the indorsee holder or assignee of securities given for consideration arising out of gaming transactions recoverable from the person to whom the securities were originally given. The governing words are in the reference to money actually paid. It is surely perfectly clear that the Clause refers only to money paid and not to money which is to be paid. There is no legal knowledge involved in the matter. If my Friend's friend at the gaming table
had handed over £300 in cash, he could not, under the law, recover that £300. It he had accompanied it by a piece of paper, which might have been called a negotiable security, and had actually paid the same money, he could go into the Courts and say, "This is the chit of a security which comes under the Gaming Act, 1835," and, on that point, he could succeed.

Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. and gallant Member is so certain that that is the case, why does he object to the Law Officers dealing with it next week?

Captain LOSEBY: Because the Law Officers have expressed themselves so clearly and emphatically. Lord Birkenhead's speech in the House of Lords was perfectly clear, and the whole point is elementary.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: I have the Report here. This question was never raised. Only the question of cheques was raised in the House of Lords.

Captain LOSEBY: I would call attention to the actual words. They make it clear that no legal knowledge is involved in the matter. The thing is clear on the face of the Bill.

Mr. LYLE: This Bill is down in my name, but I do not profess to be a lawyer, and, therefore, anything I can say on the subject now will not carry very much weight. We all want to get this Bill through. Personally, I have no ulterior object in the matter. I am not one who is interested particularly. But I have brought the Bill in at the request of a Noble Lord in the other House. It is agreed that the present state of the law is not at all satisfactory. I appeal to Members to come to a decision to-day if they can see their way to do it. I do not want to rush the Bill. It is a very sound point that has been put to the House that a bird in the hand is worth two in the hush. I do not know what is to happen next Friday. It may even be possible that the Government will have resigned; I do not know. But I ask hon. Members to realise that it is not quite right to accept what the hon. Baronet the Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley-Denniss) has said with regard to the lack of discussion. The Bill has been very fully and thoroughly discussed in another place. This Bill, or one similar to it, has been
through the other House on two occasions On the last occasion it was very fully discussed by some of the most acute legal minds we have in this country. The Home Secretary has told us that he put the matter to the Law Officers, and that they expressed the opinion that the matter was quite in order. In addition to that, we have had the very valuable opinion of my learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Raw-Upson). If I quote the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, it might strengthen hon. Members in their view. The Lord Chancellor said this:
We have to deal with a situation in which Parliament has said that if a man who has lost a wager pays in Bank of England notes he cannot recover it. The Section, which says that if he has paid it by cheque he can recover it, was allowed to remain on the Statute Book. Nobody knew that that Section had been allowed to remain in the Act. It had escaped the attention of those who had to deal with these matters. Suddenly it has been revealed that recourse may be had to the law successfully for the recovery of debts paid by cheque. My own conception of that which will follow is not that many people will avail themselves of this decision. But there are certain persons who may avail themselves of it, i.e., persons who are under the obligation which springs from the discharge of a representative duty, and in these cases undoubtedly claims will be brought forward, sometimes on a large scale.
The Lord Chancellor went on to talk of the position of executors. He said:
The executor of a deceased person who had lost £200,000 in betting, and had discharged his liability by cheque, would, in ray Judgment, be called upon to bring an action to recover this money. Conceive the position of the individual bookmaker against whom such an action is brought. He would say, Well, I won, playing the game in a court of honour. Here is someone who brings a claim for £200,000 against me. If that claim is brought against me, I, after all, must also have an equal opportunity of taking advantage of the technicalities of the law. He would, therefore, be bound to bring action against other persons to whom he has equally discharged his liabilities by cheque. There are grave difficulties in the Law Courts to-day, owing to the amount of litigation, and I am shocked to think what the resulting consequences may be.
Then the Lord Chancellor discussed the question from the moral point of view, with which we all agree; and he said in conclusion:
I cannot conceive that any sound, rational or considerable protest in the direction of supposed morality can he made on those grounds. Looking at it as an ordinary human being, with such application of common sense as it is in my power to
make, I do not see any answer to the proposals made by the Noble Lord.

Mr. SIMM: Upstairs in Committee the point was raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Oldham (Sir E. Bartley Denniss) that we should get legal advice or the advice of the Crown on the issue as to whether this Bill did not carry us far beyond what it professed to do.

Mr. LYLE: I am not a lawyer, but I think it reasonable to suppose that the great legal brains which have dealt with the question would not have lightly passed a Bill, with the far-reaching consequences suggested.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: Was not the discussion in the House of Lords restricted entirely to cheques, and is it not the case that mortgages were never mentioned?

Mr. LYLE: You cannot restrict it to cheques. I had hoped that the House would pass this Bill without controversy. I leave myself in the hands of the House, but I hope the House will come to a decision to-day.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I suggest to the House that there is nothing in the legal question which has been raised. Prior to 1835, the law, as I understand it, was that money paid for gaming debts could be recovered, and cheques given for them were void. An Act was passed in 1835 which altered the law in this respect. It made such cheques no longer void, but provided that a bookmaker who had received a cheque and paid it away in payment of a debt of his own, and got the money, could not stick to it. The Act of 1835 was meant to put him in the same position as regards payment by cheque as he was in with regard to payments in cash. The Act of 1845 prevented a person who had paid money away for a gaming debt from suing for it, but it was omitted to notice this particular Section, and there fore the bookmaker or the person who received payment of a gaming debt by cheque was left in the same position as formerly. It is to get over that and to remedy that injustice that this legislation has been found necessary. The same principle applies to a mortgage or other security of a similar nature which has been given, because it is only to the assignee of the mortgage that the money has been paid. Ordinary legal remedies apply in every particular if there be
anything fraudulent or wrong in giving it. So far as this point of law is concerned, there is no reason for the adjournment. I still think the promoters of the Bill ought to have provided for the matter which I raised earlier, namely, what is to become of pending actions and the costs thereof. Of course it is good for the lawyers; it means that a case will go up to the House of Lords as to what the Clause intends. If the actions now pending be stopped, as the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) seems to think, what is to become of the costs already incurred? I consider there is nothing in the legal point.

Mr. SPEAKER: I wish to remind the House that there is a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate. We are not discussing the merits of the Bill.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I do not propose to enter into the merits, but merely to speak on the question of the Adjournment. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), in advocating an Adjournment, said it would only delay the Bill for one week, because it would come on as the first Order on next Friday. It will, however, have a very serious effect on a matter in which the right hon. Baronet may be interested. It will affect the Bill dealing with railway fires.

Sir F. BANBURY: I object very strongly to the insinuation made by the hon. Gentleman. This has nothing to do with the Railway Fires Bill, which is not the first Order on Friday next, and will not be affected in any way. We have not to consider how the Adjournment of this Bill will affect the Railway Fires Bill, but whether or not the adjournment of the Bill is a right and proper course.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I am sure the right hon. Baronet will accept my assurance that I did not mean anything personal. I drew the attention of the House to the

fact that the Adjournment of this Bill means that it will take precedence of other Measures on the Order Paper next Friday, and one of these is the Railway Fires Bill, in which the agricultural part of the community is very strongly interested. There is also the Rating of Machinery Bill, in which a. large portion of the urban population is very interested. That Bill is the first Order at present and the Railway Fires Bill is the second Order. This Bill has already had two discussions, and if it is adjourned until next Friday we will not be able to get the decision of the House on the other two important Bills which I have mentioned. I hope the House will refuse to adjourn the Debate.

Mr. MOSLEY: The only object of adjourning the Debate would be to obtain the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. Presumably, if those opinions were forthcoming, the passage of the Bill would be facilitated, and it would immediately go through, and so no delay will ensue if the Debate is adjourned until next Friday. The conflict of legal opinion which has been evinced within the House this morning points very clearly to the necessity for advice from the Law Officers of the Crown. No explanation or excuse is forthcoming from the Government as to why the Law Officers could not be present this morning when the House is asked to pass a Bill which materially affects the law of the country. That is treating the House of Commons without that measure of respect which is due to it. It is the business of the Government, with the facilities at their disposal, to advise the House on questions in which legal doubt arises, and on which the ordinary lay mind is quite unable to adjudicate. In the absence of these Ministers I shall support the Motion for the Adjournment.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided; Ayes, 45; Noes, 107.

Division No.174.]
AYES
[12.43p.m.>


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morrison, Hugh


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mosley, Oswald


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hogge, James Myles
Myers, Thomas


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Nield, Sir Herbert


Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall. St. Ives)
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Morris, Richard
Robertson, John


Sexton, James
Wallace, J.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Simm, M. T.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)



Smithers, Sir Alfred W.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stewart, Gershom
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)
Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray and


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wolmer, Viscount
Colonel Penry Williams.


Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)




NOES


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Parker, James


Banton, George
Grant, James Augustus
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Barnston, Major Harry
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Rodger, A. K.


Barrand, A. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hallas, Eldred
Royce, William Stapleton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hayday, Arthur
Sturrock, J. Leng


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sugden, W. H.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hinds, John
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Taylor, J.


Bruton, Sir James
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Irving, Dan
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon, Cuthbert
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Carr, W. Theodore
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Townley, Maximillan G.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kennedy, Thomas
Waterson, A. E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Cockerill, Brigadler-General G. K.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Larmor, Sir Joseph
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Wignall, James


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edge, Captain Sir William
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Windsor, Viscount


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wise, Frederick


Evans, Ernest
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mills, John Edmund
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)


Finney, Samuel
Molson, Major John Eisdale
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Forestier-Walker, L.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Mr. Lyle and Mr. Rawlinson.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL TITHE RENT-CHARGES (RATES) BILL.

As amended (in. the. Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE—(Exclusion, of certain parishes.)

This Act shall not apply to benefices united by Order in Council for ecclesiastical purposes only.—[Mr. Rawlinson.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Bill, as doubtless the House knows, has been introduced to deal with the question of the rating of ecclesiastical tithes, which may be to some hon. Members somewhat uninteresting question, but what happened was this In 1918
an arrangement was entered into by which a large number of the incumbents of benefices received very much less tithe than they would otherwise have done. I ventured at that time to protest against that, but that, of course, has gone by. That being the case, in 1920 there was introduced a Bill dealing with the matter, which reduced temporarily the rates payable in respect of certain ecclesiastical tithe rentcharges. Those who represented the views of the clergy had rather the worst of the discussion that took place, because the only concession they could get was that in cases where the holder of a benefice had a total income not exceeding £300, he got certain relief, and if it did not exceed £500 he got another form of modified relief. It was a very small concession to what was really a considerable injustice at that time. There are certain benefices which have been joined together for the sake of economy in the Church. It has been done in rural districts, so that in certain cases there are two benefices joined, one worth £160 and the other, we will say, worth
£150, the total coming to just over the £300. The matter came before the Courts of Law, and it was held that they were two separate benefices and were entitled to the small exemption which the law gave them at that time. This Bill was introduced, and I do not suppose the promoters would suggest it is not a very typical Bill, coming from the landowners, dealing with these men. They say, "If there are two of you, and the parish is united in any way, you must come within this Bill, and you have got to total up the two benefices, and if it comes to £310 you are not to have the benefit of the concessions given."
I think it is a pretty hard thing, and of course the whole Bill is, but this new Clause deals only with this particular case, and limits the hardship as far as it goes. There are certain benefices which are not united altogether. Some benefices are united altogether, and for all purposes have become one benefice, being called, for instance, Stoke-cum-Poges, or some name like that; but there are a certain number of benefices which have not been joined for all purposes—not for rating or civil purposes, but merely for ecclesiastical purposes. My new Clause provides that when these benefices have been joined merely for ecclesiastical purposes, then this Bill shall not apply.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: What does my hon. and learned Friend mean by "ecclesiastical purposes?

Mr. RAWLINSON: All I can say is that there are a very large number of parishes which unite for civil purposes, as well as ecclesiastical purposes. There are a certain number which are only joined for ecclesiastical purposes, and not for civil purposes as well. Perhaps some hon. Member who understands this will tell why it is. As to why the difference is made I cannot say. Quite frankly, I object to the Bill altogether, but this new Clause, at all events, limits the Bill.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I can quite understand the point of view put by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am afraid I cannot accept this Clause, which would really stultify the whole purpose of this Bill. The object of this Bill is simply to remedy an error of drafting in the Act of 1920. Under the Act of 1918, the rate of
tithe was reduced, and that had the effect of reducing some of the income of the clergy. I do not want to go into the justification for that. We must go back to the Act of 1891, which places the whole burden of paying the tithe on the landowner, and the Church owes its position to-day very largely to the sacrifice which the landowners then accepted. That is the reason why it became impossible for the landowner in 1918, when he got no benefit from the increased price of corn in increased rent, to pay an enormously increased rate of tithe, which was due to the rise in the price of corn, which did not go into his pocket at all. The origin of the Act of 1918 was due to the initiative of the clergy in a part of England which is very heavily tithed, who knew it would be impossible for the landowners to pay that tithe out of the old rents they were receiving, and to their honour and credit—and I desire to acknowledge it—they put forward the suggestion, which was the actual suggestion adopted by the Government, that the rate of tithe then in force, namely, 109, should be perpetuated for a number of years in order to adjust the burden between the tithe-owner and tithe-payer.
The Act of 1918 was passed on that ground. It then appeared that it did inflict some hardship upon the poorer clergy, whose incomes were small, and, in recognition of that, Parliament, in 1920, passed the Act which this Bill seeks to amend, first of all enacting that no clergyman should pay a higher rate on his tithe than the rate which existed in 1918 at the time the Act was passed. That applied to all clergy and that is not affected by this Bill. Further, it enacted —and this was to help the very poor clergy—that where an incumbent had a total income from his living under £300, he was exempt from rate on tithe. When his income was under £500, the rate on his tithe was half. That was purely personal, and the intention of Parliament clearly was that those figures should be the actual income of the incumbent who got the relief. After the Act was passed, it was found that, owing to an error in drafting, and contrary to the intention of Parliament, where an incumbent held a united benefice, he was able to claim a separate calculation on each of the two component parts of his united benefice, and, therefore, though he might have a total income of £700 or £800 a year, if
the two separate component parts of the united benefice were each under £500, although he might be far better off than any other individual ratepayer in the parish, he would get off half the rates on his whole income because it was treated in two separate portions. Similarly, if he had an income from a united benefice of £500 a year, composed of two separate component parts of the united benefice, each under £300, he would get off his rates altogether.
1.0 P.M.
All that this Bill does is to amend the Act of 1920 in that particular, so that the actual figure shall be the actual income of the incumbent, as Parliament intended, and the effect upon the ratepayers is one which the House certainly did not anticipate at the time the Act was passed. The effect on the poor rural parishes is that, in a large number of cases, the rate has been increased on other ratepayers in some cases as much as 2s. ld., 2s. 0¾, 1s. 8d. and Is. 6d. I have got here, not selected parishes, but the parishes of a whole union, which I could read to show that the poor rural ratepayers, not entirely owing to this Clause, but to the present working of the Act, have had imposed upon them very heavy burdens. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the landowners are not putting this matter forward. It is not they, but the occupiers, who pay the rates, and the National Farmers' Union and farmers generally have put, forward this matter. All that I am asking the House to do, and all that the agricultural community is asking the House to do, is to remedy the error in drafting in the Act of 1920, and to say that the relief intended, namely, that clergymen with an actual income of not more, than £300 and not more than £500 shall get the relief, and not those who have much larger incomes, simply because they are derived from a united benefice. There is no distinction of merit as between the benefices ecclesiastically united and civilly united. The question simply is, what is the income of the incumbent? The question as to whether benefices are ecclesiastically or civilly united has really nothing to do with the question before the House. Therefore, I cannot possibly accept the Clause, which would really wreck the whole purpose of the Bill and make the differentiation between clergy-men worse than it is at present. I hope,
therefore, the House will not accept this new Clause.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The second new Clause (Application of Agriculture Rates Act, 1896, a. 3), proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for the Aldershot Division (Viscount Wolmer), is not in order, being outside the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Relief of abatement in case of several benefices held by one person.)

Where the owner of tithe rentcharge attached to a benefice holds more than one benefice (whether united for ecclesiastical purposes or not so united) he shall, in respect of any rate made on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, be entitled under Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Ecclesiastical Tithe Rentcharge (Rates) Act, 1920, to such relief or abatement only as he would have been entitled to if the several benefices were one benefice and any tithe renteharge attached to any of the several benefices were attached to that one benefice and the total income arising from the several benefices arose from one benefice.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move to leave out the word "holds" ["holds more than one benefice"], and to insert instead thereof the words
shall, after the passing of this Act, become the holder of".
The proposed new Clause which has been disallowed would, I think, have proved the solution of some of the evils about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) has spoken. As I am not able to move it, I want to move the further Amendment which is on the Order Paper. The object of this is to prevent the Bill having a retrospective effect. We heard a good deal the other day during the passage of the Finance Bill of the evils of retrospective legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) spoke very eloquently on the subject, and he had the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as representing the Government, and, I think, of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken and who introduced this Bill. The effect of this Bill as it now stands is retrospective.

Mr. PRETYMAN: indicated dissent.

Viscount WOLMER: In regard to what has just fallen from my right hon. Friend on the general question, I note he has taken the House back to ancient history. He did not take the House quite far enough back. If he was going into ancient history at all, he might have gone to the Act of 1840 and the interpretation which has been put upon it in relation to the parson's income. There is a very good reason for believing that the present is altogether a misinterpretation of the law, and that the parson's income ought not to be subject to rates at all. But that is a very big question.
The situation as we find it to-day is this: the clergymen of this country for many years were paid a tithe. Directly the tithe started to rise it was limited by Act of Parliament, in 1918. My right hon. Friend admitted that that had caused a considerable loss to the clergymen. He did not, however, tell the House how much. By the operation of the 1918 Act, the clergymen of this country have already lost over £2,000,000. Their tithes, instead of being 170 stand at 109. As he says, the Act of 1920 was introduced in order to redress that evil. It has only partially redressed it. The clergymen are still over £1,000,000 down. The result of the combined operation of these two Acts—as everybody in the House knows—is that a great many have been practically put into a position of semi-starvation, and have had to submit to a rate which no trade unionist would for a moment accept. What happens? The extent to which relief is given by the Act of 1920 has been a matter of dispute in the Courts, and for the first time in the whole of this long story the clergy have got a decision to the effect that a man holding a united benefice ought not to be assessed on the combined income, but on each income separately. My right hon. Friend says that that is not the intention of the Act of 1920. Whether or not that was the intention, it certainly is what the Act says, and surely Parliament must be held responsible for its own Acts! My right hon. Friend comes down and asks the House not only to reverse the Act of 1920 in this respect, but also to reverse it retrospectively.

Mr. PRETYMAN: No!

Viscount WOLMER: Well, I venture to differ. Under the Bill as it now
stands, the clergyman who has accepted a second benefice, with all the increased responsibilities, worry, and cost, under the belief, as he had every reason to believe, that the law was that he would still be able to gain some benefit from the Act of 1920, now, by the action of the present Bill, as it stands, will be put in a position he never contemplated when he accepted the second benefice. The object of this Amendment is to limit the scope of the Bill to those cases where a parson takes two benefices together in the future, so that he should do so, if he wishes, with his eyes open, and knowing what the state of the law is.
I maintain it is altogether unjust that a man should have been allowed to undertake this work and this responsibility, carrying with it, as it does, increased cost in many cases, without a just equivalent. If a man has tried to be the parson of two parishes instead of one, and very likely has had to engage a curate, to keep a pony and trap, or a motor bicycle, or something of the sort, and to maintain, it may be, two mission rooms, and have the ultimate responsibility for the cost in these matters, it is not fair to say to that man: "It is quite true you have reason to believe that you would still secure favourable terms under the 1920 Act, but when we passed that Act we did not mean what we said, and we propose to reverse it, and we propose to treat you as if that Act had never been passed." Therefore, I maintain that in that respect the Bill of my right hon. Friend has a retrospective effect, and is not fair to the clergy.
On that point I should just like to say that I do hope the House of Commons will never forget that the clergy are the only class who are excluded by law from membership of this House. Therefore I think this House should be particularly jealous of the manner in which they are treated. They are not here to speak for themselves. They cannot be here. Therefore we ought to be snore especially scrupulous in the way we deal with them. We here have the case of men who are pursuing an honourable, a very honourable avocation—most honourable, I think—men who are admitted to be grossly underpaid, who have included in their numbers some of the poorest in the land, who never got relief during the hard times, and when the scale turned in their favour, had their income limited by Act
of Parliament. You here have a Bill to reverse the judgment which turned in their favour for the first time, and which in regard to individual clergymen has a retrospective effect. I therefore hope very much that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment. I do not know quite what the Noble Lord means by this Bill being retrospective, because no clergyman will have to repay anything. Of course, it would be quite improper in the case of a clergyman who has had the benefit of the judgment that he should repay any benefit that he has already received. What he calls being retrospective is, that a man who has had the benefit of the judgment, or has recently accepted a living, will find that when this Bill becomes an Act, there will be an Act of Parliament adversely affecting him. This House often passes laws which surprise people a good deal, and they sometimes find that they have to pay sums of money which they never expected to pay. But you cannot call that retrospective. If the Noble Lord can show me any way in which this Bill is retrospective, I shall be most happy to amend it.
These proposals are intended to carry out the intention of the House, and it is not a question of voting money for the benefit of the clergy. What is now suggested is a question of taking a burden off the clergy and putting it on the very poor ratepayers in the poor rural parishes. It is in the poor rural parishes where this applies, and in those parishes the income of the clergy is very often larger than any other individual in the parish. This deals with a burden of sometimes over 2s. in the £ caused through an unfortunate error in the drafting of the Bill of 1920, and I do not think the agricultural community ought to suffer that injustice any longer. Therefore, whilst sharing my Noble Friend's view as to the desire of the House to treat the clergy fairly, and recognising that they are not represented in this House, I may say that I have had letters and representations from the clergy themselves strongly in favour of this Bill, and if a ballot took place they would recognise that this was an error in drafting, that it is against the interest of the rural districts, and that it is unjust that the
ratepayers should be treated in this way. I think, even in the interests of the Church itself, it would be better that this Measure should be passed in the form in which it is presented to the House.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend with great interest, and I heard with some surprise his doctrine that the clergy are, as compared with other ratepayers, wealthy persons. In that contention I think he is mistaken, because there are very few large farmers who are not a great deal better off than many of our rural clergy. Therefore, I think it is not possible to deal with this question by that sort of appeal. The Amendment is to the effect that where a clergyman has taken a living on a certain understanding of the law, he should not be placed unexpectedly in a worse position than that in which he already finds himself. Where the class we are dealing with are defenceless and very poor, this is a consideration of no little weight. If we were considering a comprehensive Measure dealing with all the anomalies which concern tithe rent-charge, if we were going to re-open the whole question, what my right hon. Friend says would be a very important relevant consideration. My right hon. Friend, zealous and sympathetic as he pretends to be in regard to the interests of the clergy, nevertheless proposes to do nothing in their interests, and he is simply favouring the class to which he himself belongs. He is a large rural ratepayer, and naturally smypathises with them. He sees their grievances very vividly, and he is intervening to relieve a single anomaly, or what he calls a mistake in drafting.
I should imagine that any provision of which one might disapprove might be called a mistake in drafting. Even in respect of this one thing which he thinks ought to be altered the right hon. Gentleman leaves everything which tells in favour of the class he is benefiting, and I think that is an unworthy act. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture present, and I hope the Government will bring forward a comprehensive Measure dealing with the whole of these grievances, because that would be a perfectly proper thing to do. We have been told that we cannot even extend this Measure a little further in order to make it a more comprehensive and a little less purely partial
in the interests of one of the classes concerned. To select a single class and deal with it in a partial Clause of this kind is not worthy of Parliament. At any rate, we might start afresh and declare that the law shall remain as it stands for the present. That would not inflict the injustice of coming down unexpectedly on people and placing them in a different position to what they find themselves in at the present moment. I think we should start afresh on this matter, because that course would not affect the arrangements which have been made on a certain understanding of the law, and it would not place them in a different position.

Major BIRCHALL: I regret that on this matter I cannot see eye to eye with my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer). No one is more anxious to help the poor clergy than I am, and no one advocates more strongly than I do that they ought to be relieved of these charges. This Bill suggests that the Act of 1920 shall not apply where one man holds two or more livings. I am inclined to think that that would have been the view even of the supporters of the Act of 1920, which was especially an Act to assist poor individuals and remedy some of the grievances as they affected poor individuals. We are now told that the individuals who are to be relieved are not necessarily the poorest individuals. Some of these clergy may hold two livings each amounting to £290, and they will get relief on the whole of the tithe because both livings come under £300. I do not think that the clergy desire to take advantage of anything that was not the intention of the Act. When we come to the Bill before the House I am inclined to support it.
With regard to the Amendment proposed by the Noble Lord, I fear that it will make still more grievances. If you create another class of clergy, those whose benefices have been held previously and subsequently to this Act, there is no reason at all for that distinction in equity, and therefore I think that will make a further grievance. After all, the whole business is to be reconsidered in1926, and my impression is that the clergy, although not fully equitably dealt with, have yet had a large measure of relief granted to them. The large
majority of them are quite content with that relief, and do not desire to press the Act unduly, as apparently they are entitled to press it by a decision in the Courts unless this Bill be passed this morning. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. If it be pressed, I am afraid that I shall have to vote against it, and I believe that a large number of clergy themselves do not desire it to be carried.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): This is not a Government Bill, but it is based upon an Act passed by the Government two years ago, and, therefore, I ought to say something about it. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that by the Act of 1920 we did intend to give relief to the poorest of the clergy. We did intend to relieve altogether from the payment of rates on tithe those clergy who had less than £300 a year and to halve the rates in the case of those whose incomes were less than £500 a year, but we never for a moment intended or thought that it was possible where a man was receiving £600 or £700 a year because his income was derived from two beneficies, he should get the advantage of the Act that a man who received a smaller income from one benefice did not get. It is perfectly true that this little Bill, strictly limited as it is, does remove a grievance which is felt in a great many country districts by other ratepayers. It removes the advantage of an unexpected windfall enjoyed by certain clergy, which, so far as the Government are concerned, was never intended for them at all. I am sure that my Noble Friend and others will not accuse me of any want of sympathy for the clergy. I would gladly, in my personal capacity, have done a great deal more for them than was done by the Act of 1920, and I agree that the time must come very shortly when the whole of this matter will have to be reconsidered. The present Act is a temporary one, and we shall have to reconsider the whole matter before 1926. This particular Bill, for which I am not responsible, deals with one limited point and in the interests of the Church, apart from everything else, I do advise my hon. Friends not to oppose it and not to try to whittle it away.
What would be the effect of this Amendment? It would mean that if the
clergyman had been appointed before the passing of the Act and had two benefices from which his income might be £600 or £700 a year, he would still have the advantage of this unexpected windfall which he got by the Act of 1920, but another clergyman, appointed after the passing of this Act and in precisely the same position, would not get it. My Noble Friend suggests that it is wrong that we should do something that has an element of retrospectiveness about it. I suppose he means that these clergy accepted these united benefices knowing that they would have this advantage. Does anybody really suggest that they did so? In any case, it would apply only to those appointed since 1920, and the Amendment would release from the provisions of this Bill not only those appointed since 1920 but all those appointed before, and who, as I say, have got an unexpected windfall. Does the House realise that when the construction of the Act came to be considered, the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England felt that where benefices had been united under the Statute the clergy were not to have this particular advantage. It was only because of a case taken in the Law Courts that, quite unexpectedly, these particular clergy got the advantage. They did not expect it. I venture to say that by insisting upon an unexpected advantage, which really accrued from an error in drafting, we are not doing the Church any good. We did want to help the poorest of the clergy Some who are not the poorest happen to have got the advantage, and it has been the cause of a great deal of criticism. The thing that we ought to aim at above everything else is goodwill between tithe-payers and tithe-owners, because, otherwise, serious damage is done to the interests of the Church. Therefore, because I think it is seeking to whittle away this Bill and extend for two or three years more an unexpected advantage, I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I am afraid that I find myself in acute opposition to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he realises in the least the injustice that has been done to the clergy by his predecessor and by himself in regard to this matter.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: By myself?

Mr. RAWLINSON: Yes, first by the Tithe Act, 1918.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I was not responsible for the Act in 1918. I was responsible for the Act of 1920, from which they get some advantage.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I agree that they get some advantage, but as I said at the time, it is very slight. The utmost they got was that those who held benefices under £300 should have exemption from rates and that those who held benefices under £500 should have partial exemption. If it had been a question of income, it would have been said that a person who had an income of less than £300 should be entitled to it, and that those with an income of more than £300 should not be entitled to it, but it was perfectly well known that a person with a small benefice might have private means. Some of them have private means, and they get the benefit and were intended to have the benefit of the Act. I do object to Members of the Government coming down and talking about an error of drafting in an Act for which they are responsible, which the House of Commons has passed after careful consideration, and upon which the Law Courts have given a decision. The right hon. Gentleman brought in that Act and was responsible for it. It was a very small concession to the clergy, and I said so at the time. We have now got a decision upon it in favour of exemption, and the right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to vote against the Amendment; which really means that where two or three small benefices are joined the holder shall get this advantage quite irrespective of his private income. My Noble Friend who spoke just now is no doubt equally with myself opposed to the whole Bill. This Amendment simply says that if this is to he the rule in the future, and it never has been so in the past, the Bill shall apply only as from to-day. I submit that that is a perfectly fair point to put forward. The fact remains that if a man did last year take a joint living which had been a separate living before, he undertook all the responsibilties attached to it, and he also took it on the basis that the parish would have to find a residue of the rates on the tithes. This Bill alters that position. It does not deal with the position of the person who has a vested interest, so to say, at the present time. This is a concession which
is only a small concession even to a man with two livings. It does not necessarily follow, because he has two livings, that he is a rich man. He has the expenses of the two livings to keep up. I wish we could deal with the whole question, but that is not likely to be attempted for some time to come, and having regard to the loss which the poorer clergy sustained by the Act of 1918, and the very narrow nature of the concession made by the Act of 1920, I suggest that it is a wrong policy to now attempt to whittle away that concession. The Bill should be made to apply only to those who took livings knowing what the law was going to be. Under the circumstances I shall support the Amendment.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I do not see how the Amendment alters the Clause. I should have thought that the meaning of the two was exactly the same. My Noble Friend who moved the Amendment spoke of the Clause as being retrospective. I do not wish to pit my opinion against that of the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) who has just spoken, but, personally, I do not think the Clause is retrospective. I am sorry I did not hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil). He appears to have referred to the necessity—and I entirely agree with him —for a larger dealing with this subject than can be undertaken in any Amendment of the Act of 1920. The whole question of the rating of tithes is a very difficult one. It is an anomaly, really, that tithes should be subject to rates at all. That goes back to historical causes which we cannot enter into at the present time. Apart from that, I really do not see that this Bill, which has been brought in to deal with the Act of 1920, is unjust. I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken that it involves the whittling away of the very small concession which appears to have been given by the Act of 1920.
It is quite true, if you look at the series of Acts going back to the 1891 and 1896 Acts, as well as the 1918 and 1920 Acts, considerable injustice has been done to the clergy who depend on tithes, and it certainly would be taking a wrong view of those Acts to say that the clergy, having had to endure great privations during a
long period of years when the tithe was very low, should, now it has risen to par or above, be deprived of the compensating advantages which might have accrued to them in fat years and which might be set against their privations in the lean years they have gone through. Still for the reasons which my hon. Friend who introduced this Measure gave earlier in the afternoon, it was found to be in the interests of the clergy, as well as of the tithe payers, that there should be a rearrangement, and that was come to in one of the earlier Acts. That being so, the whole question, it appears to me, is whether or not the Act of 1920 was intended to have the effect given to it by certain decisions of the Court. I remember that when that Act of 1920 was before this House—speaking entirely for myself, and I may have taken a wrongful view of it—it never occurred to me that any incumbent would get an advantage by being able to split up two separate benefices which he might hold at the same time. From a rating point of view that is a mere technicality. It is not very often common knowledge whether a benefice held by a clergyman is a united benefice or not. The only material fact is what he derives from the tithe in the cure of souls which is in his charge. He may have an income of 1600 a year, but it is no concern of anyone whether it is derived from a single benefice or from united benefices. That, I repeat, is a mere technicality and I do not think any incumbent would take advantage of it.
I doubt if any incumbent ever imagined that he would get an advantage, and it was only a mere accident, which often does occur in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, that it turned out that, lurking in the Statute, was an opportunity for this advantage to be gained. That being so, why should there be any attempt by this Amendment, if it effects any alteration at all, to whittle away the effect of this alteration of the Act of 1920, which is really a correction of a piece of bad draftsmanship? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) rather twitted the Minister for Agriculture with the fact that, as he was responsible for the Act, he should be the last person to seek to prevent the correction of a piece of mistaken draftsmanship. After all, however, I think that very few of the Acts passed by this House do
not in course of time reveal points on which the Law Courts have detected some method of interpreting them which was certainly not contemplated either by Parliament or by the chief interests concerned. Although, therefore, I am very much alive to the injustice which has been done by the whole method of dealing with tithes in regard to the clergy of the Church of England, I do not think that this particular provision is an instance of an injustice being done to them. As I support the Bill and as I think that what is being attempted in this Amendment can only be done by a much larger revision of the whole system of local rating, I am unable to support the Amendment, and if it goes to a Division, I shall have to vote against it.

Mr. ROYCE: I hope the Noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. I am quite sure that, in his endeavour to help his Church, and he is most sincere in that respect, he is unwittingly desiring to continue an injustice to a great many other ratepayers. The Noble Lord referred to the rich farmer in the parish, and made a special allusion to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill. There are, however, other ratepayers in the parish besides the rich farmer, even assuming that the rich farmer exists, and I am not quite sure of that in a good many parishes. So far, however, as the other ratepayers are concerned, their awakening was a very rude one when the 1920 Act was put into operation. They felt that a great injustice was being done to them, because, having been accustomed to pay a certain amount of rates, they suddenly discovered that by the operation of the Act they were called upon also to pay the parson's rates, as they expressed it. To the Nonconformist element that was a very great grievance indeed. I hope that, since one section is left, at any rate, the opportunity of receiving benefits under the 1920 Act, the. Noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: In this matter I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for North East Leeds (Mr. Birchall). He has, as the House knows, taken a very active part in doing what he can for the poorer clergy, and I in my humble way have also made some endeavours in that direction. In this case, however, I cannot see that I can do other than oppose this Amendment. I am one of those who
think it is an anomaly that the parson should pay rates upon his tithe, because, as everyone knows, he pays rates upon his vicarage and so on in the same way as any other householder. Everyone who is rated in respect of land has a similar grievance, in that they are rated upon the raw material of their trade, as no one else is. The other ratepayers have been receiving, in respect of tithe, the benfit of getting rates paid by the parson which the parson ought not to be called upon to pay at all. He has been paying something for which he has been receiving no benefit whatsoever. That, however, is a bigger question outside the present one. Those who pay in respect of land—and the tithe is simply rated because it is a hereditament which is supposed to come out of land—are all suffering the same grievance, because land is rated more highly and in an unfairer way than anything else. With regard to this particular injustice which has fallen on the other agricultural ratepayers, that, as I think is admitted by anyone who really knows anything about it, was a mistake in the drafting of the Act. I know with what surprise, and in some cases joy, incumbents found that they were going to receive a benefit from this mistake. Of course, it was very pleasant to them, but at the same time it was a surprise and a mistake. I do not see that there is anything to be done except, as far as we can, to put that mistake right, because, although it was very fortunate for the time being for those who received the benefit, it did throw a very heavy burden upon the other ratepayers, who were also paying rates in respect of land.

Sir THOMAS BENNETT: I should have been glad could I have supported any of the Amendments which have been presented, but, as a whole-hearted supporter of the Act of 1920, I am anxious that it should be applied loyally 'in the spirit and in the letter. The object of that Act was to relieve the poorer categories of clergy. It was not meant to relieve clergy whose aggregate income came to more than £500 a year. As the Act stands, however, it will obviously do what was never intended. For instance, it was never intended that a clergyman with an income of £550 a year should be let off rates entirely. It was not even intended that he should be let off with
half rates. But if the Act remains as it stands, a man holding two benefices of £275 each, and who, therefore, gets an income of £550 a year, will benefit. It seems to me that this Bill is an honest and an inevitable Measure, if the purpose of the 1920 Act is to be carried out. I do not think there is any danger of the Bill acting retrospectively. If there were I should support the Noble Lord in any Amendment he might make with a view to preventing that. The Bill, as it stands, seems to me to be an honest attempt to carry out the intentions of the Act of 1920, and therefore I support it.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) said that this Amendment would have no effect on the Bill, but I think it would have considerable effect. The Bill, as I read it, is certainly not retrospective, that is to say, it will not compel those clergymen who have succeeded in getting a reduction in their rates to make up the arrears of the rotes which they would have had to pay if the Bill had not been in existence. As I understand the Amendment, however, its effect would be this: Supposing that I were a clergyman and held two of these livings, for the future I should be exempt from rates in the way intended by the Act of 1920. But supposing that my hon. Friend were to take those two benefices in a year's time, then, if this Amendment were passed, he would have to pay. That is the effect of the Amendment. The Amendment would reserve to those clergymen who are already enjoying the benefit of this omission the right to enjoy that benefit as long as they remain holders of the benefices; but, if a new clergyman were instituted to two benefices, that new clergyman would have to pay the rates which the prior occupant would not have had to pay. I think that is the exact position. I generally have a fairly clear view of, at any rate, what I think is right, but really, at the present moment, I do not in the least know what to do. I can see the difficulty, and I am not quite sure that the Amendment will not cause hardship. I am not at all sure that I am impressed by the argument which has been used about the ratepayers. After all, speaking broadly, there is no class of the community, especially in the country, whose incomes
are so small and who find it so hard to live and to keep up appearances as country clergymen Every other class in the country except the landlord has benefited recently. Whatever may he the position of the farmer at present, I do not agree with the hon. Member opposite that there are no rich farmers.

Mr. ROYCE: I did not say there were no rich farmers.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the hon. Member to express a doubt as to whether there were or not.

Mr. ROYCE: I have no doubt whatever. I know there are rich farmers.

Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Member said that at present the farming industry was in a bad position I should agree with him, but they have done well in the past and there is no reason why they should do badly in the present. But the clergyman received no benefit whatever during the War. The labourer did. His wages were more than doubled. The clergyman's stipend was not increased in any kind of way. The landlord was practically in the same position. So I think it is hardly right to say the ratepayers will have to pay and therefore we should put this burden upon the clergyman in order to relieve the ratepayer. After all, the ratepayer is very largely responsible for the enormous increase of the rates. If he chose to vote properly he could stop the increase and reduce his rates, whereas the clergyman by himself has no power in any direction. I have little sympathy with the ratepayer because it is his own fault that the rates have been increased in this enormous way. I am not quite certain how I shall vote. I should like to hear on the Third Reading what the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and the Noble Lord opposite, are. If there is a division I should be inclined to take no part in it.

2.0 P.M.

Viscount WINDSOR: I was not a Member of the House when the 1920 Act was passed and, therefore, it is difficult for me to judge what was intended. I can only judge by what the Act actually says. I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) that it is a mere technicality as to whether this tithe is derived from a single or a
double benefice. To my mind it makes a very large difference indeed. The holder of a double benefice has a great many more expenses and a vast number of other responsibilities which make a very great difference to him. But there is one aspect which I do not think has been touched upon. I know from experience that, as the result of this Act of 1920, in certain parts of the country the parsons are being re-assessed on their vicarages and anything else they have to pay rates on very much more highly in consequence of the fact that they have derived benefit from this 1920 Act, and that is a point which ought to be taken into consideration. It is true, perhaps, that this 1920 Act was, to them, a surprise and came to them as a very small windfall, but, in consequence of that Act, they are in some cases being re-assessed much more highly, and any benefit they may have derived from the Act is going to be annulled in a very short time. I really think this question might have been left over until the whole matter was considered. I have no doubt which way I shall vote. I shall support the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Sir R. NEWMAN: I beg to move, after the word "benefice"["holds more than one benefice"], to insert the words "the joint net incomes of which exceed four hundred pounds."
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is desirous to be quite fair to the clergy as well as to the agricultural community. I think he will see at once that the effect of a clergyman holding two livings often very much increases his liabilities, and, at any rate, his responsibilities. If you went to an ordinary clergyman and asked him whether he would take a living of £300 a year, a single benefice, or if he would take two benefices of £150 each, there are very few, unless the circumstances were very exceptional, who would not take the one benefice. Very often when two parishes are held by one clergyman, there are two schools and two churches, and there are responsibilities, perhaps, for the upkeep of the chancel and other incidental expenses attaching to it. My Amendment really does not go very far. It is, perhaps, rather a rough and tumble one.
All it says is that if a clergyman holds two livings, and they do not exceed £400 a year, he shall retain the benefit he receives at present. The question has been raised of a clergyman holding benefices of the value of £600, £700, or more. I only ask for a maximum of £400, when there are two benefices, whereas the Act only applied to a single benefice of £300. There is an Amendment later on in the name of my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), but I suggest that mine is the better of the two, because it is a plain, fair statement of £400, whereas the other calls upon the incumbent to prove a certain part of his expenses, and so on, which is often rather difficult.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the promoters of the Bill will respond to my hon. Friend's appeal. The whole case for the Bill has been that the Act of 1920 was intended to give relief to poor clergy, and that, by the interpretation which has been put upon it, that relief may be extended to a class of clergy whom it was not intended to relieve. That is the whole case for the Bill, as I understand it. The point raised in this Amendment is very germane indeed. My hon. Friend asks the House to say that where a man holds two benefices the relief shall be given up to the extent of £400. I think this is a very reasonable demand. In the 1920 Act total relief is given up to £300. If this Bill were carried as it now stands the person holding two benefices at, say, £170 each would not get that total relief, because his income would then be £340. When a man holds two benefices there are a number of expenses to which he is necessarily put which he would not incur if he held one benefice, and if you say, as the Mover of the Bill is prepared to say, that it is reasonable that the man enjoying one benefice should receive total exemption up to £300, it is equally reasonable that a man who holds two benefices should be relieved up to £400. This is a simple, straightforward, and honest proposal. I have tried to meet the same point in a different Amendment, but I do not know whether the right hon. Member is going to accept that or not. He has not accepted anything yet.
This Amendment is different from my Amendment in this respect, that it leaves no doubt about the matter. I have tried to say in my later Amendment that any expenses which a parson is put to in holding two benefices should be a legitimate reduction. In some cases it is rather difficult to say what those expenses are. A man may, for instance, have to have a pony cart or a motor bicycle. It is rather difficult to prove that if he had not two benefices he would dispense with the motor bicycle. Any solution on those lines leaves a certain measure of unsettlement. My hon. Friend in his Amendment has put forward the suggestion that a man who holds two benefices should be given total exemption up to £400. That is a definite proposition about which there can be no manner of mistake. It is very fair, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and my right. hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—who sympathises, at heart, with the clergy, and who if he were not in his present official capacity would take a somewhat different attitude from that which he now takes—will accept the Amendment. It is a reasonable request. It answers the promoters of this Bill out of their own mouth, it confines the scope of the Bill to the relief of cases of real poverty, and I do not see what objection there can be to it. It is absurd to say that £400 a year is not a miserable wage for a man who has to run two parishes. That. £400 may be worth only £200 or £250 pre-War, and there are a great number of deductions that have to come out of the parson's pocket, as anybody who knows anything about the matter will admit. Therefore I hope my right hon. Friend will give us a concession in this matter.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I have great sympathy with the argument put forward by my hon. Friend and by my Noble Friend, but I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, because this is the scale which Parliament has given, and the object of the Bill is merely to give effect to what Parliament agreed to in the 1920 Act. I quite understand that £400 a year is a small income, but the limit fixed by Parliament was £300 a year. This Amendment is interlocked with the last Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the Noble Lord, but there is a great deal of difference between that Amendment and the Amendment now proposed, which
would continue to place the burden upon the ratepayers. The other Amendment deals with Income Tax, which is a matter to be dealt with by this House. If the later Amendment were necessary I should certainly be glad to accept it, but I hope to show, when the time comes, that that is already within the Income Tax rules and that full allowance will be made. It often happens that united benefices which are only nominally two, and in which exemption has been obtained, really only have one church and one school, and, therefore, no additional expense is imposed. There are, however, other parishes where a claim for extra expenses does occur.

Sir R. NEWMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there are many united parishes which have only one church and school?

Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes. I have cases in my own district. There are a great many cases of that kind. On the other hand, there are united benefices which do involve more expense, more work, and more time, but that is already allowed for under the Income Tax Acts. I have every sympathy with the general arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, and if Parliament had agreed to a scale of £400, instead of £300, I should have raised no objection to the Amendment, but all that this Bill does is to put right what has now been established as a drafting Amendment in the Act of 1920, and I cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. Friend says that the Income Tax Acts provide for this case, but the Income Tax Acts do not provide for the difficulty in regard to rates. As I understand it, the Amendment now moved provides that where a person has two benefices, that the advantage given in regard to the payment of rates should be given to him, provided that the joint incomes of the two benefices do not amount to more than £400 a year. My right hon. Friend replies that the Income Tax Acts provide for certain allowances, but that is only in regard to income. They do not provide for the difficulty in regard to rates. The Amendment is, that a clergyman who, owing to the fact that he has two benefices, has to incur extra expenditure, should receive some allowance. Otherwise, as I understand the argument, that
particular person will be in a worse position than his fellow clergymen who happen to have only the one benefice. My right hon. Friend says that there are cases of two parishes with only one church, but I should think that those are very rare cases. But whatever legislation you pass, you cannot prevent certain hard cases arising. In this case we might, perhaps, benefit one or two people who really ought not to benefit. On the other hand, there would be the danger of doing injustice to a considerable number of men. Therefore, what we have got to consider is whether what we propose is going improperly to benefit a few people, while at the same time we are properly benefitting a much larger number of people. To secure that result I shall certainly support the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: I would ask the promoters of this Amendment to appreciate the seriousness of the proposition which they are making. When it comes to a question of rates, the taking into account of the expenses of earning income does not arise, and they are introducing for the first time the question of the expense of earning your revenue as being a subject to be considered in legislation in paying local rates. That is a principle that can be extended later on. The claim made by one section of the community for relief of rates on this ground may be made by other sections, and I think that that is a most dangerous thing.

Sir F. BANBURY: The clergyman is the only person who pays rates on his income.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: That is one of the matters that were referred to when the Act of 1920 was under discussion. If he is paid one-tenth of the produce of the land, the tithe owner is in a position of the actual tiller of the soil. But you do not make this exemption in the case of the other people who till the soil and take the other nine-tenths of the produce, and I could not at that time understand why this exemption should be made in the case of the titheowners. I am not sure whether I did not divide the House on it at the time. And now when that principle is so much in dispute, and the attempt is being made under cover of this Bill, the excuse for which is, I understand, to rectify some blemish in the Act, the
Noble Lord and those whom he represents are seeking to give a much further extension to that principle. That is against public policy, and ought never to have been included in a private Member's Bill which is discussed on Friday. While one can sympathise with the objects which they have in view, I feel certain that the introduction of an innovation with reference to rates and abatements of rates is one of which we should not approve. No ratepayer can be relieved of his responsibility with regard to rates, as in that case other sections of the community will be trying to get the same relief for themselves, and once the principle has been conceded it will be very difficult to oppose it being extended to other classes of the community. For that reason I shall vote against the Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member, I think, is not correct in the suggestions he has made. As the law stands at present, a clergyman holding joint livings for £170 a year each, which may be £340 in all, gets exemption in paying his rates. This Bill proposes to alter that, and says that those people shall be liable to that extent. All that this Amendment suggests is that that alteration shall not be carried out in its full effect, and that it shall not apply in cases where 2400 is received. There is no new principle involved in the Amendment. The Amendment merely says that the alteration of the law shall not apply to the full extent, but only, as it were, to a half-way house. The question of principle has nothing to do with the Bill at all. The question of expense in earning incomes applies to Income Tax, and you cannot extend this principle to the question of rates beyond the case of tithes, because the only person who has to pay rates upon his income is the clergyman. The Amendment is merely a modification of the Bill, and to that extent I shall vote for it, because I am opposed to the Bill.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I would like to point out what would be the effect of this Amendment. What would happen would be that one man would be exempt from his rates altogether because his income is under £300. Another man will get a similar exemption because his income happens to be £400, and yet there would be no real distinction. It might be in some cases that the union of bene-
fices does cause additional work. On the other hand I know many cases in country districts where two small parishes lying together have been united and where there is much less work than there may be in the case of a single parish of a very large character. In that case the man who happens to have two small parishes will receive an advantage over the other man who is really doing more work. A further point raised was that the extra expense should be taken into account. The House should remember that under the Act of 1920 the amount of the income obtained, whether there was an exemption or not, has to be arrived at by statutory declaration which is to be calculated according to the rules of the Income Tax, and it is laid down in those rules that any expense to which a clergyman is put in the discharge of his duty, and which is necessary in order that he may earn his income, may be deducted. I agree that if a clergyman is put to extra expense in consequence of a union of benefices there is a case for drawing the line higher as the Amendment proposes, but the income is arrived at in accordance with certain rules.

Lord H. CECIL: My right hon. Friend has developed a very curious conscience,

in that he cannot bear the least anomaly or the least injustice if it benefit the clergy. But as long as the anomaly or the injustice benefits the land-owning or farming class, he and his friends feel no scruples about it whatever. My right hon. Friend is very much shocked that we should draw an arbitrary limit of £400 a year, and he said it would be one more anomaly. If it were an anomaly from which he and his friends would benefit he would not feel the slightest scruple about it. What scruple has the right hon. Gentleman shown about any anomaly that affects his own class? I never heard him express the slightest reluctance to avail himself of any advantage that, the law gave him and his friends. But the clergy are in a different position. They are very poor and defenceless people, and accordingly neither my right hon. Friend nor the Government will consider their grievance. This Amendment reasonably proposes to exempt people under £400 a year. I hope we shall divide on the Amendment and leave to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends the mean discredit of opposing it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes 32: Noes 126.

Division No. 175.]
AYES.
[2.30 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remnant, Sir James


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Ganzoni, Sir John
Smithers, Sir Alfred W.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G
Hopkins, John W. W.
Sugden, W. H.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Taylor, J.


Barlow, Sir Montague
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
White, Col. G D. (Southport)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Bruton, Sir James
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Windsor, Viscount


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Lorden, John William
Wolmer, Viscount


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)



Farquharson, Major A. C.
Mosley, Oswald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, Walter
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Sir R. Newman and Mr. Rawlin


Foxcrott, Captain Charles Talbot
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
son.


NOES


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Graham, R. (Nelson and colne)


Banton, George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hayday, Arthur


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Edge, Captain Sir William
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Birchall, J. Dearman
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelity)
Hinds, John


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hogge, James Myles


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir.J. A. (Midlothian


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Breese, Major Charles E.
Evans, Ernest
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Fell, Sir Arthur
Irving, Dan


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Finney, Samuel
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Forestier-Walker, L.
Johnstone, Joseph


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Carr, W. Theodore
Galbraith, Samuel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gardiner, James
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)


Cockerlil, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Kennedy, Thomas


Cope, Major William
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Kiley, James Daniel


King, Captain Henry Douglas
O'Grady, Captain James
Thomas, Rt, Hon. James H. (Derby)


Lawson, John James
Parker, James
Thomas, Brig,-Gen, Sir O. (Anglesey)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Thomas, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Pearce, Sir William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverle F. P.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallace, J.


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Waterson, A. E.


Mills, John Edmund
Robertson, John
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Rodger, A. K.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Royce, William Stapleton
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Warden, Col. W. Grant
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Morris, Richard
Samuel, At. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Cal. L. O. (R'ding)


Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wise, Frederick


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Simm, M. T.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Stanley, Major Hon. G (Preston)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Myers, Thomas
Stewart, Gershom
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Neal, Arthur
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser



Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward
Terrell, George (Wilts, chippenham)
Mr. Pretyman and Mr. George


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)
Roberts.


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided that in calculating the income arising from the several benefices there shall be deducted from the total any expense to which the incumbent is put by reason of holding more than one benefice.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and the Minister of Agriculture both agree with the principle of this Amendment, but believe it to be unnecessary because the point is already covered by the Act of 1920. Whether that be the case or not, I think there is good reason for inserting these words and I hope they will be accepted. I do not see that it can possibly do any harm. If these words are put into the Bill it will make it perfectly clear, to every parson who reads the Bill, that he is entitled to make a deduction on account of any expense to which he is put by reason of holding two benefices. If we do not put in the words there is a strong possibility that a number of clergymen who hold two benefices will not claim all that they might claim. I desire to save the clergy from unnecessary legal expenses. Our taxation is so complicated that no man can fill up his Income Tax forms without. securing legal advice and assistance. I cannot do so in any case, and I have to meet a large lawyer's bill every year on account of the complexity of our taxing legislation. I wish to avoid that difficulty in the case of the clergymen by means of this Amendment and to notify every clergyman who has been put to extra expense by reason of holding two benefices that he is entitled to make a deduction on that account. It is not quite so simple a point as it seems at
first sight. A man holds two benefices, and he finds he cannot work those two parishes without a motor bicycle or a motor car or some means of locomotion. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Ford car!"] It may be a Ford car. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or a Rolls-Royce!"]I think the clergymen who have Rolls-Royce cars are very few in number. He may, on the other hand, be put to the expense of having an extra mission, or the like. Supposing that man has just come from a benefice where he enjoyed the luxury of a motor bicycle, but where it was not absolutely necessary to him in doing his work, and therefore was never returned as part of his necessary expenses. if he comes to a cure where he holds two benefices, and where he could not possibly do his work unless he incurred this expense, a man in that position probably would not claim the relief to,which he is entitled unless his attention were drawn to the fact that he was so entitled. As my right hon. Friends do not disagree with the principle of the Amendment, I hope no opposition will be offered to it.

Mr. BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I only speak on this Amendment because reference has been made to the view I hold on the matter, and also because I wish to point out the difficulties which will arise if this Amendment, is carried. In order to obtain the benefits of the Act of 1920, an incumbent must make a statutory declaration of his income. In arriving at that income, certain deductions are allowed. They are allowed in the case of
clergy who take the benefit of the Act now. They will be allowed in the case of clergy who come under the operation of this particular Measure, and there is really no more reason for calling the attention of the clergy to the statutory deductions in this case than there is in the other case. I think it is most undesirable that we should have two separate systems for two separate classes. In each case I think the full deductions which my Noble Friend seeks to secure are allowed. In connection with the Act of 1920, deductions are allowed by Regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. A special Order, issued in the year 1921, has reference to this case, and among the various deductions allowed are the following:
Any expense incurred wholly and necessarily in the performance of the incumbent's duties as a clergyman.
Payment of a licensed curate.
The only additional expenditure that a man could be put to because he holds two benefices instead of one is, in my opinion, covered by those words. He may be put to extra expense because he is carrying out the duties in connection with two benefices, and he is allowed to deduct that extra expense. It is laid down that this income for the purposes of the Act is to be ascertained in accordance with the rules that are set out in the, Schedule of this Act. I therefore submit that the matter is fully covered and that it is very undesirable to have different words applying to the cases of two benefices from those which apply where there is only one benefice. I think the Amendment is unnecessary, although I sympathise with its object, as I think it is right that all these expenses should be deducted. I think they are deducted, and therefore it is unnecessary to insert this Amendment.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The rules read out by the right hon. Gentleman are rules issued by the Minister of Health, and at any moment he can introduce fresh rules. I therefore think it is advisable to put the Amendment in the Bill, so as to make sure that these expenses can be deducted. As long as those rules exist, they would carry out the provisions of the Amendment and no difficulty would arise, but there would be no harm in putting the Amendment in the Bill, as there are a
large number of people who have never beard of these rules of the Minister of Health. I confess I have never heard of them before.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are they not rules of the Inland Revenue Department?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: They are Orders issued by the Ministry of Health in accordance with the Act of 1920, for the purpose of calculating the amount of income in order to ascertain whether a clergyman is to obtain the benefit of the Act or not.

Mr. RAWLINSON: As I say, I never heard of these Rules before, and therefore, if you put this Amendment in the Bill, it will be of advantage to people like country clergymen, a large number of whom are keenly interested in the Bill, as I know from my correspondence bag. They will then know that they are entitled to this relief; it is already set out in the Rules, but probably a large number of clergymen have never heard of them.

Sir F. BANBURY: As I understand, the objection of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, it is that this is already provided for by certain Rules brought in by the Minister of Health in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1920, but if that be so, why should this Amendment not be put into the Bill, seeing that it does not alter what is already the practice? There is this advantage in putting it in, that a clergyman would then see that under the Act he is entitled to these exemptions. I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) that in all probability 99 people out of 100 have never heard of the Rules read out by the right hon. Gentleman, and how on earth is the ordinary country clergyman to get hold of them? Also, I think it is possible that, with the accession of another Minister of Health they might be so drawn as to have a different effect. It must be remembered that there is a very large number of people who do not really understand what advantages they may get under the Income Tax Acts. I myself, with some considerable Parliamentary experience, had a case where I thought a surveyor of taxes intended to charge me unjustly, and I found out that I was entitled to over£1,000 return. I had not the
remotest notion of it before, and had not found it out I should never have claimed, but I have done so now. If an ordinary Member of the House of Commons commits mistakes of that sort, what can you expect a country clergyman to do who does not understand Parliament or know what is going on? I do not say the Income Tax officials are anxious to mislead people, but, on the other hand, especially in the last two or three years, they have not been distinguished by any great anxiety to point out to the taxpayers how they can reduce the payments they have got to make, and therefore I think it is extremely likely that the, surveyor of taxes will not point out to the clergyman that he is entitled to make these particular deductions. I cannot see any reason why, if this does not make any alteration in the custom, if it does not alter the Rules brought in by the Minister of Health, it should not be put in the Bill. I see the Minister of Health is on the Treasury Bench, and I should like to know what his opinion is. Does he object to these Rules being put into an Act of Parliament, because that is what it really comes to? I hope we shall go to a Division on this, and I shall vote for the Amendment of my Noble Friend.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will see the reasonableness of this Amendment. There is no point of revenue concerned, and, surely, if it were a working man's case, he would be entitled to say: "Make the law as simple as you can, so that I can understand it." That is, after all, what is involved, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has given no reason against the Amendment, will see the reasonableness of giving an opportunity to any citizen to understand what he is entitled to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: What is proposed really would not do what my right hon. Friend desires.

Mr. THOMAS: Why not?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: For the simple reason that by the system of rules the deductions allowed are laid down in the ordinary case of a clergyman with one benefice, and where there is a union of benefices a different system is to be adopted and it is to be stated in the Act. I cannot see why you should have
one system in the ordinary case of a parson with one benefice and another system in the case of a parson with two benefices. An hon. Member said the Minister of Health might alter these rules and that, therefore, the substance of them should be embodied in the Bill, but that would deal only with these particular people with two benefices and would not affect the great majority, who have got only one benefice. We are always being twitted with making our Acts of Parliament complicated, and to insert this Amendment would, to my mind, be a quite unnecessary complication. Although I entirely agree with the object that underlies this Amendment, I must ask the House not to accept it.

Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to make one other point. It is said that these clergymen will know nothing of the privilege. I regard it as very important, and if I thought this would help, I would gladly accede to it, but I am sure it would make no difference, because the clergyman who comes under the Act. of 1920 must, in any case, present his accounts, and therefore his attention must be called to it, and is called to it now. I thoroughly agree that we want to avoid complications. There are far too many complications already in the Income Tax law, and all that this would do would be to introduce another complication. In the interests of the clergy and everybody, I think it is best to leave the exemption where it is every clergyman must claim under the Act of 1920, and must know about it. Therefore, this Amendment is unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

Rill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Adoption of Act.)

This Act shall not apply to a local authority unless and until—
(a) it shall have been adopted by such local authority by a resolution passed by a majority of the members of such local authority, at a meeting called for
the purpose, of which a mouth's previous notice shall be given to each member of such local authority, and such notice shall be accompanied with a copy of this Act, together with an estimate certified by an actuary of the cost to the local authority of adopting this Act; and such resolution shall also have been confirmed by such local authority at their immediately succeeding regular meeting held not less than one month after the passing of such resolution:

Provided that in the ease of a local authority having a superannuation fund or scheme in operation, whether under the provisions of a local Act or otherwise, the adoption of this Act by such local authority shall not take effect unless and until it shall have been agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the officers and by not less than two-thirds of the servants who are respectively members of, contributors to, or interested in such fund or scheme, and unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Minister of Health for the application of the provisions of this Act to persons interested in the said fund or scheme and for the protection of the rights of such persons: and this Act shall, in its application to any such persons, have effect subject to the provisions of any scheme so approved: Provided, further, that such adoption by a local authority shall not affect any private interest which shall have been regulated by any local Act; and
(b) such resolution shall have been approved of by the Minister of Health.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I beg to move, in paragraph (a), after the word "majority" ["resolution passed by a majority"], to insert the words" consisting of not less than two-thirds."
The object of this Amendment and the next Amendment is to provide that no superannuation scheme shall be introduced by a local authority unless there be a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of the council present and voting. This is for the protection of the ratepayers, to guard against a superannuation scheme being adopted by a council by a narrow and inadequate majority. It is the result of a good deal of consideration and negotiation as to the best method of dealing with this problem. The suggestion of a poll was discussed in Committee, and finally it was decided, after consultation with the leading representatives of local authorities, that the method now proposed would probably afford the protection required, and be the
most practical way of carrying it out, without involving expense.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In paragraph (a), after the word" authority" [members of such local authority "], to insert the words "present and voting."—[Sir A. Mond.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I am not sure I agree with this Amendment. The Clause, as it appears, says
it shall have been adopted by such local authority by a resolution passed by a majority of the members of such local authority.
The proposal that there must be a two-thirds majority is, I think, a good one, but if you are going to say that that majority must be of the members "present and voting," that makes a very considerable difference, because a meeting might be held at a rather inconvenient time, when only a small number of members were present, who might be able to pass something which might throw a very considerable burden upon the ratepayers. I certainly shall oppose this.

3.0 P.M.

Sir H. NIELD: I regret exceedingly that my right hon. Friend should have offered this objection. We have striven in Committee, and since the Committee stage, to try to get into agreement, and we have come to an agreement. Surely, if my right hon. Friend will look at the Clause, he will see the protection it gives. First of all, a meeting is to be called for the express purpose of passing this Resolution; secondly, a month's previous notice must be given to each member of the local authority, accompanied with a copy of the Act and an estimate certified by an actuary of the cost to the local authority of adopting the Bill, and such resolution shall have been confirmed by the authority at their immediately succeeding regular meeting held not less than one month after the passing of the resolution. Surely those safeguards are amply sufficient to secure the attendance of all members of the local authority who desire to attend on the day of the consideration of the resolution.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Clause as it originally stood says
it shall have been adopted by such local authority by a resolution passed by a
majority of the members of such local authority.
Therefore if there are 40 members on the local authority, it would require 21 to vote in favour of it, for it to be successful. The Amendment would mean that the resolution could be carried if there were only a small number present.

Sir H. NIELD: I do not appreciate the interruption in the least. Here is a definite statement that the meeting is called for a specific purpose. The word "majority" was certainly understood in Committee to mean a majority of those present and voting, because when a discussion arose in Committee with regard to what that majority should consist of when the poll was being proposed, I myself suggested that my right hon. Friend should have an absolute majority of the council. There are many of us on the county council, district council or parish council who know perfectly well the numerous things that occur to prevent members who desire to attend from being present to vote for a motion. The Clause provides every safeguard.

Mr. J. JONES: We on these benches support the principle of the Bill, and we also very much appreciate the opposition of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). A short time ago we were discussing the trade union position, and the, right hon. Baronet, with others, tried, to the best of their ability, to prevent us from having the right to decide by a majority vote, what we should do in our trade union business. He laid down the very principle contained here, that we should have at least a two-thirds majority of the members voting in the direction of applying political funds in the matter of the Labour party. I cannot understand why he departs from that principle this afternoon.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have not laid down any principle of which I know.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman never does lay down any principle —only convenience. As a member of a local authority, I venture to suggest that the officials have been very generous in offering to pay towards their pensions. A large number of other officials do not pay towards their pensions, although they get very well pensioned. What is the
matter here? The local town council taxes its officials for the purposes of a pension fund, and these officials agree to the tax. It has been said that when a vote is to be taken it must be carried by at least two-thirds of the total members of the council. As a matter of fact, that is impossible. There are over 700 Members of this House. Take any Division you like when we are imposing laws and taxation upon the people. Take this week, when we have been discussing matters of life and death to large numbers of the people in the matter of finance. Has there been two-thirds of the Members present, to say nothing of voting?

Sir F. BANBURY: There ought to have been.

Mr. JONES: You would lay it down as law?

Sir F. BANBURY: I would, certainly.

Mr. JONES: You would, certainly. But, as it is, you are going to make it impossible for the thing to be done. I wish to God this House were representative of the people in a real sense of the term. If the Labour party had accepted a Clause of this description, it would have prevented hon. Members opposite from introducing more taxation, and it would have prevented us from introducing reductions. If you want to give protection to the public, make every public representative attend to his business. Then there would not be any business men on public bodies, because they would not be able to attend. Such a regulation would help me very considerably. A two-thirds majority ought to be able to safeguard any interest, and if the people who believe in the ratepayers have not got the capacity to attend, or find it impossible to attend, they are not representing the ratepayers, and instead of being business representatives they are simply there for the purpose of their personal honour. This safeguard is sufficient for anybody. Two-thirds of the members present are sufficient guarantee in this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment proposed: In paragraph (a) leave out the words
and such notice shall be accompanied with a copy of this Act."—[Sir H. Nield.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that I really quite follow the object of this Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend—

Sir H. NIELD: It is moved on the grounds of economy.

Sir F. BANBURY: Oh yes, I know. But I do not think it is in the nature of economy. The effect of it all may be to impose great burdens upon the ratepayers and I do not know that I approve of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:
In paragraph (a), leave out the words "their immediately succeeding" ["at their immediately succeeding regular meeting"], and insert instead thereof "a."[Mr. Rodger.]

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the words
Provided that in the ease of a local authority having a superannuation fund or scheme in operation, whether under the provisions of a local Act or otherwise, the adoption of this Act by such local authority shall not take effect unless and until it shall have been agreed to by not less than two-thirds of the officers and by not less than two-thirds of the servants who are respectively members of, contributors to, or interested in such fund or scheme, and unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Minister of Health for the application of the provisions of this Act to persons interested in the said fund or scheme and for the protection of the rights of such persons; and this Act shall, in its application to any such persons, have effect subject to the provisions of any scheme so approved: Provided further, that such adoption by a local authority shall not affect any private interest which shall have been regulated by any local Act.
I do so because this proviso is now quite unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Definitions.)

In this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
Aggregate service" means service as defined by this Section of any officer or servant with the addition thereto of any such period of service of such officer or servant as is to he aggregated with his service as so defined under the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "reckoning service in case of transfer";
Non-contributing service" means service rendered by an officer or servant
prior to his becoming a contributor to the superannuation fund, or by an officer or servant who has attained the age of fifty-five at the date of the commencement of this Act;
Officer," or "servant," means an officer or servant at the date of the commencement of this Act in the permanent service of the local authority or thereafter appointed, and in each case designated an officer or servant in an established capacity for the purposes of this Act by a resolution of the local authority, and whether in receipt of salary or wages, but does not include any person entitled, as an officer or servant of a local authority, to any pension or superannuation rights under any public general Act of Parliament;

"Salary" or "wages" means all salary, wages, fees, poundage and other payments (including any War bonus) paid or made to any officer or servant as such for his own use, also the money value of any apartments, rations or other allowances in kind appertaining to his office or employment, but does not include payments for overtime;
Service" means whole-time or part-time service as an officer or servant after such officer or servant shall have attained the age of eighteen years, and (in the case of any person appointed after the commencement of this Act) after designation as aforesaid.

Amendments made:

In paragraph beginning "Aggregate service," leave out the words
Aggregate service" means service as defined by this Section of any officer or servant with the addition thereto of any such period of service of such officer or servant as is to he aggregated with his service as so defined under the Section of th7s Act of which the marginal note is "reckoning service in case of transfer.

In paragraph beginning "Non-contributing service," leave out the words "prior to his becoming,' and insert instead thereof "in respect of which he is not a." Leave out the words "or by an officer or servant who has attained the age of fifty-five at the date of the commencement of this Act"—[Sir.4. Mond.]

In paragraph beginning "Officer" or "servant," leave out the words "at, the date of the commencement of this Act."

After the word "authority" ["permanent service of the local authority"], insert the words "on the appointed day."—[Sir H. Nield.

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in the paragraph beginning "Officer" or "servant," to leave out the words
but does not include any person entitled, as an officer or servant of a local authority, to any pension or superannuation rights under any public general Act of Parliament.
These words are considered to be unnecessary because they would detrimentally affect officers or servants of a local authority who derive their salaries from more than one office. The words as they stand create a hardship where the officer derives the greater part of his emoluments from the second office.

Sir F. BANBURY: I really do not see why these words should be left out. Surely it was never intended that a person who is entitled either as an officer or servant of a local authority to any pension or superannuation under any public general Act of Parliament should receive in addition superannuation from the rates. I do not understand why these words should be left out. I certainly think that they should remain in, and, unless I get a satisfactory explanation, I shall certainly divide upon the Amendment.

Sir H. NIELD: It is proposed to leave them out so that hardship should not be done to humble persons like police sergeants, or asylum officers, or persons who occupy minor positions. The small pension which they receive should not debar them from enjoying this superannuation, provided that the service in respect of which they receive that pension shall not be reckoned for superannuation under this scheme. An Amendment will be proposed to Clause 16 which will protect the ratepayers. We protect the superannuation fund from having to pay for such back service, but we do not disqualify a person from superannuation in respect of the service rendered to the authority. I hope sincerely that with that explanation my right hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Sir F. BANBURY: This is really a rather important point. A man leaves the police force and gets a large pension, and he gets taken on by a local authority—

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make a second speech.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. RODGER: I beg to move, at the end of the Paragraph commencing "Salary or Wages," after the word "overtime," to insert the words
nor does it' include any allowance paid to him to cover cost of office accommodation or clerks' assistance.
I do not think that any sum paid for office accommodation or clerks' assistance should count for superannuation purposes.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir H. NIELD: I accept the Amendment, because, obviously, it would be unfair to allow a person to receive superannuation on money paid to him for his office or staff.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in the Paragraph commencing "Service," to leave out the words
means whole-time or part-time service as an officer or servant after such officer or servant shall have attained the age of eighteen years, and (in the case of any person appointed after the commencement of this Act) after designation as aforesaid.
and to insert instead thereof the words
as respects an officer or servant of any local authority means whole-time or part-time service in the permanent employment of a local authority after such officer or servant has attained the age of 18 years—

(a)rendered to that local authority whether before or after the appointed day; and
(b) rendered before the appointed day to any other local authority of a kind which would have been reckoned as service for the purpose of paragraph (a) hereof; and
(c) rendered after the appointed day to any other local authority which is under this Act permitted to he calculated for the purpose of calculating superannuation allowances.

The expression service,' when used in relation to service after the appointed day, means continuous service, amid, in relation to service rendered before the appointed day, means any service, whether continuous or not.
The object of this Amendment is to define "service" in such a way as to enable officers to transfer from one local authority to another without loss of superannuation rights. There is a very important point of principle involved here as, unless this Amendment is inserted, it might prevent the promotion
of the officers from one local authority to another, from smaller to wider spheres, and this might do a good deal of harm to efficient local administration in this country.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or part-time."
The result of this Amendment will be to confine the operation of the provision to whole-time service. I do not understand why part-time service should be entitled to a pension. As far as I know, it is not now pensionable and I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman why it is proposed to make it pensionable and what is the reason for imposing this additional burden on the taxpayer, seeing that a man may only be engaged about an hour or two a day or one day a week by a local authority and yet be entitled to a pension in respect of that.

Mr. S. ROBERTS: Suppose a man has been in the employment of a local authority which has not adopted the Bill, has therefore paid no superannuation contributions whatever, and then goes to another authority which has adopted the Bill, is he to be entitled to superannuation? Would not that mean that a man who is under an authority which has not adopted the Act will have very little chance later on in life of being taken over by an authority which has adopted the Act? Will they not say, "Here is a man getting on in life who has paid nothing into any superannuation scheme and who, if he comes to us, will get superannuation"? I am not quite clear whether that applies as between one authority that does adopt the Bill and another that does not.

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not apply to this.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer to my question as to why part-time service is included, and whether I
am correct in thinking that as a rule in superannuation schemes part-time officials are not included?

Sir A. MOND: The reason for including part-time officers is because there are people like medical officers of health, who in many cases are not whole-time officers, who do come into superannuation schemes now, and whom it would be unfair to exclude from the benefits of this Clause. Otherwise they would be in a worse position than other people working under this scheme. I do not know whether there is a very large number of them, but I know that there are medical officers of health who are only part-time officers, carrying on their ordinary work and also acting for local authorities as medical officers of health at a salary, and who are in superannuation schemes at the present time.

Sir F. BANBURY: That, I think, shows how right I was in moving to leave out these words. As I understand it now, it applies to medical officers—

Sir H. NIELD: And clerks, in many cases

Sir F. BANBURY: —who do certain work and receive certain fees for doing it, as part-time work for these local authorities. What does that mean? It means that a medical officer, who may, for 29 days in the month, be working on his own account, carrying on his own business, and who for one day in the month happens to do some work for the local authority, becomes entitled to a pension. That seems to me to be absolutely absurd, and I trust that if there are any Members in the House who seriously desire economy, they will raise some question on this matter. There can be no earthly reason why a medical officer, only a part of whose work is done for the local authority, and who for the rest of his time is engaged in private practice, should have a pension. I am not at all sure that where a local authority employs a solicitor, and always employs the same solicitor, and, it may be, pays him a retaining fee, he would not come in under this scheme, and, because he is employed for part of his time by the local authority, would be entitled to a pension. I really do think we are going too far in this case, and I say again that I hope, if there are any hon. Members who are sincerely desirous of assisting in the reduction of expenditure,
both local and national, that they will support me in moving the omission of these words.

Sir H. NIELD: I assure the right hon. Baronet that he has not the faintest idea of the working of a superannuation scheme. He is making a lot of statements at random, with the intention of prejudicing this Bill and the whole subject of superannuation, without having any real knowledge of it. He talked about a solicitor, because he was a solicitor to a public authority, being entitled to a pension. Nothing of the sort. A man can only he entitled to come into the superannuation scheme after a resolution has been passed, as will be seen later on in the Bill, by the authority, treating him as the servant of the authority. That is a very different thing. In the case of part-time clerks, there are many thousands of men in the smaller authorities throughout the Kingdom who would not be able to subsist on the salaries that they receive for their part-time services. My right hon. Friend forgets that the superannuation is based on the amount of the salary received. To whom much should be given, of course, much he would get; but the man who takes little has to base his superannuation on that little, and pays his half for it—because it is a contributory scheme. I do ask my right hon. Friend to consider that a matter like this, which has been threshed out in the greatest detail by the Minister for the protection of the ratepayers, ought not to be lightly attacked in this way.

Sir H. CRAIK: My hon. and learned Friend mistakes the analogy of superannuation in the public service. He- says the right hon. Baronet knows nothing about it. I know something about the public service. In my experience we have bad legal and medical advisers, but it was never considered for a moment that they had any claim to superannuation. As soon as you require a medical or legal officer to give all his time, of course, you must provide him with a pension, but I am absolutely certain when I say that in no department of any public service has part-time work entitled a man to a pension. He gives it out of the time he can spare from other work. The other work is the main business of his life. He only gives the part service as a sort of secondary work. It has certainly never hitherto been the custom in
the public service that a man who does occasional work that is required and has a retaining fee can claim superannuation in respect of that retaining fee.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: May I ask what the right hon. Baronet would do in the case of a man who is employed part time by four local authorities and does nothing else?

Sir F. BANBURY: rose—

Sir H. NIELD: On a point of Order. I do not know whether this is not the third speech of the right hon. Baronet.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and learned Gentleman most remember that. I moved the Amendment, and, under the Rules of the House, when a. Bill comes down from a Grand Committee, an hon. Member who moves an Amendment can speak as often as he likes. I was for many years Chairman of a superannuation authority; I have considerable knowledge of railway superannuation funds, and it is not the fact that those funds are satisfactory because they are contributory. They have only been rescued from insolvency by the generosity of the railway companies, who have contributed mach more than they were bound to. It is because I believe these schemes will impose a very heavy burden on the ratepayers that I am taking a small part in this discussion. This is an innovation in the public service.

Colonel Sir JAMES GREIG: What we are attempting to do now is to make a fund which will support itself and not come to the terrible end as did the fund to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend is under the impression, as most people are, that once you have a contributory scheme it will be all right. He has probably got actuarial support for that statement, but experience shows that it is not so. No doubt every precaution was taken to ensure that the railway schemes should be self-supporting, but as a matter of fact they have not been self-supporting, and the majority of them, if not all of them, would have been bankrupt. if it was not for the generosity of the railway company in coming forward and providing out of the pockets of the shareholders a
sufficient sum of money to make the funds solvent.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Combinations of local authorities.)

(1) The following local authorities, namely:

(a) The council of any county and any local authority whose area is situate within the county; and
(b) Any two or more local authorities whose areas are situate in the same county

may enter into combination for the purposes of this Act:

Provided that such combination shall not take effect unless a combination scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Minister of Health.

(3) Any local authority to which this Act applies may, on such terms and conditions as they think fit and with the approval of the Minister of Health, admit any officers or servants of
(a) any local authority, not being a local authority to which this Act applies, whose area is situate within the area of such first - mentioned local authority; or

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, in Subsection (1, a), after the word "is", to insert the words "wholly or partly".
This Clause restricts the right of combination to local authorities whose areas are situate within the same county, the reason of the restriction being that the county rate affords a common nexus for such authorities, and gives them a common financial interest in the scheme. It has, however, been pointed out that the area of some authorities, such as river boards and water boards, is not necessarily coterminous with the area of a single county—a rivers board may have jurisdiction extending beyond one county, and the Amendment is therefore designed to allow a county council in such a case to combine with a rivers board, although the area of the rivers board is not wholly within the area of that county.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Bill says that every servant who has completed ten years' service
shall become incapable of discharging the duties of his office or employment with
efficiency by reason of permanent ill-health or infirmity of mind,
shall be entitled to a pension.
Now the right hon. Gentleman proposes to insert the words "wholly or partly." What does "wholly or partly" mean? If he is incapable of carrying out his work, I have no objection.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet has not read the Amendment. This is a question of area.

Amendment agreed to. Further Amendment made:

In Sub-section (1, b), after the word "situate," insert the words "wholly or partly."—[Sir A. Mond.]

Mr. RODGER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1, b), to insert a new paragraph—
(c) Any two or more local authorities whose areas are situated in adjoining counties where it appears to the Minister of Health that one of such counties is by reason of its limited population or otherwise insufficient of itself to provide the number of officers or servants required to be designated when adopting the Act.
In Scotland we have some very small counties, some of them with populations of under 10,000, and under the Bill such counties would be excluded.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. C. D. Murray): As far as Scotland is concerned, I shall be glad to accept the principle of this Amendment. I do not think that the Amendment as it stands is in proper form, but if my hon. Friend withdraws it, I will undertake that in another place a more appropriate Amendment shall be introduced on behalf of Scotland.

Mr. RODGER: On that assurance, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (3, a), after the word "situate," insert the words "wholly or partly."—[Sir A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Title to superannuation allowances.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act every officer and servant

(a) who shall have completed ten years' service or ten years' aggregate ser- vice, and shall become incapable of discharging the duties of his office or
1617
employment with efficiency by reason of permanent ill-health or infirmity of mind or body; or
(b) who shall have attained the age of sixty years and have completed service or aggregate service as aforesaid of forty years; or
(c) who shall have attained the age of sixty-five years;

shall be entitled on resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold his office or employment, to receive during life a superannuation allowance according to the scale by this Act provided.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1, a), leave out the words "or ten years' aggregate service."

In Sub-section (1, b), leave out the words "or aggregate service."—[Sir A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Scale of superannuation allowances).

Subject to the provisions of the Section of this Act of which the marginal note is "Allowance for previous service" and to any other provisions of this Act the superannuation allowance to be made to an officer or servant under this Act shall he made out of the superannuation fund and shall be on the following scale (that is to say):
(a) after ten years' service ten-sixtieths of the average amount of his salary or wages during the five years which immediately precedes the day on which the officer or servant ceases to hold his office or employment;
Provided that any part of a superannuation allowance which is calculated by reference to a War bonus or other similar allowance shall be calculated and liable to variation in accordance with the rules for the time being in force with respect to superannuation allowances of members of His Majesty's Civil Service.

Amendment made:

At the end of paragraph (a) insert the words
or attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever he the earlier."—"[Sir A. Mond.]

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
Provided also that, for the purpose of calculating the superannuation allowance of a. full-time officer who has formerly served as a part-time officer, the period of part-time service shall be reduced to such proportionate extent as in the opinion of the local authority the circumstances may require.
The object of the Amendment is to enable the local authority to transmute the part-time service of an officer into
its equivalent in whole-time service for the purpose of superannuation.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Reckoning service in case of transfer.)

Where an officer or servant transfers from the service of one local authority who have adopted this Act, with the consent of that authority, to the service of another local authority who have adopted this Act, within six months of leaving the service of the first-mentioned authority, the first-mentioned local authority, shall pay out of the superannuation fund to the local authority to whom the officer or servant so transfers, a transfer value ascertained in accordance with Rules made for the purpose by the Minister of Health, and in that case an officer or servant shall be entitled to reckon contributing service under the first-mentioned local authority:
Provided that any officer or servant may appeal to the Minister against the refusal of a local authority to give their consent to any such transfer, and the Minister, after consulting the local authority, may give his consent, which shall he equivalent to the first-mentioned local authority,

Amendment made:

Leave out the words
reckon contributing service under the first-mentioned local authority,

and insert instead thereof the words
such rights in respect of service before the date of transfer as though such service had been with the local authority to whom he has transferred."—[Sir.A. Mond.]

Amendment proposed:

At the end of the Clause to insert new Sub-sections—
(2) Where an officer or servant transfers from the service of a local authority who have not adopted this Act to the service of a local authority who have adopted this Act within six months of leaving the service of the first-mentioned authority, he shall, if he pays in lieu of transfer value a sum or sums to be ascertained in accordance with Rules to he made by the Minister, he entitled to reckon service with that authority in whole or in part in accordance with the amount of the sum so paid.
(3) No service with another local authority shall be reckoned under this Section unless the officer or servant transferring has within six months after the transfer satisfied the local authority to whom he transfers that he has been in the service of another authority or authorities."—[Sir A. Mond.]

Sir F. BANBURY: There ought to be some limit of age inserted here. The pensionable age is 60. I feel sure it is not the intention to allow a man to come in under a scheme at 59, and, by paying
a small sum, to be able to qualify for a pension. My recollection of superannuation schemes is that a man over a certain age is not allowed to come in.

Sir H. NIELD: My right hon. Friend should have realised that this is in the interests of the fund. Here is a man who has had the misfortune to be the servant of an authority which has no fund, and he is selected for appointment under an authority which has a fund. Whatever his age may be, the question will be what was the length of his service with the former authority? When you have ascertained the number of years he, would have subscribed if the former authority had had a fund, he is called upon to pay into the new fund not merely the 5 per cent. which he would have paid had he been the servant of the new authority all the time, but he is bound to shoulder the additional 5 per cent. which his old authority ought to have paid if it had had a fund.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Return of contributions in certain cases.)

In the event of an officer or servant voluntarily resigning his office or employment or being dismissed for incapacity (fraud or misconduct not being alleged) before he has under the provisions of this Act become entitled to a superannuation allowance the local authority shall pay to him out of the superannuation fund a sum equal to the amount of the contributions made by such officer or servant under this Act.

Amendment made:

At the end of the Clause insert the words
Notwithstanding anything in this or the fast preceding Section the local authority shall not make any return of contributions with or without interest in the case of an officer or servant who transfers to the service of another local authority, where on such transfer a transfer value is paid by the first-mentioned local authority."—[Sir.A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Officers and servants to contribute.)

(3) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any officer or servant who is fifty-five years of age or more on the appointed day, and no such officer or servant shall contribute for the purposes thereof.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "day'' ["the appointed day"], insert the words
or at the date of his appointment, unless his service with any other local authority is reckoned under the provisions of this Act."—[Sir A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Allowances for previous service.)

Non-contributing service shall he reckoned for determining whether an officer or servant is entitled to a superannuation allowance under this Act, and in calculating the superannuation allowance of any officer or servant who is so entitled, his allowance in respect of his non-contributing service shall be at the rate of one one-hundred-and-twentieth (or in the case in which the local authority by special resolution so decide at such rate as the local authority may determine. not exceeding the rate of one-sixtieth) of the average amount of his salary or wages for the last five years of his service or aggregate service in respect of each year (not exceeding forty years) of his service or aggregate service, and in reckoning the non-contributing service of any officer or servant any portion of a year during which such officer or servant has served for more than six months shall be reckoned as a year:
Provided that the amount of ally superannuation allowance granted in respect of noncontributing service so far as it exceeds one-hundred-and-twentieth of such average amount as aforesaid in respect of each year of service or aggregate service, shall not be paid out of the superannuation fund but shall be chargeable upon the same rates and revenues as those upon which the salary or wages of the officer or servant to whom the allowance is granted are charged.

Amendments made:

Leave out the words "or aggregate service" ["not exceeding forty years of his service or aggregate service'].

Leave out the words "or aggregate service" ["in respect of each year of service or aggregate service"].—[Sir A. Mond.]

Sir H. WELD: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert new Subsections—
(2) In the case of an officer or servant of a local authority adopting this Act no period of service with any other local authority shall be reckoned for the purposes of this Act unless such officer or servant shall within six months from the appointed day prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the local authority employing such officer or servant that he has been in the service of any such authority:
Provided that no service shall he so reckoned in respect of which an officer or servant is entitled to any superannuation allowance or gratuity other than a super-
annuation allowance or gratuity under this Act.
(3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, an officer or servant who has served successively as a teacher and on an administrative staff shall have the years of service which would be recognised under any Act for the time being relating to the superannuation of school teachers recognised for the purposes of this Act as if such service had been wholly on an administrative staff:
Provided that any such last-mentioned officer or servant shall not be entitled to any greater superannuation allowance from the local authority under this Act than shall be sufficient, together with any superannuation allowance under any such Act as aforesaid, to make up the amount to which he would have been entitled had his service been wholly on the administrative staff of such local authority, and for the purpose of this Section account shall be taken in such manner as the Minister of Health shall prescribe of any capital sum paid or payable to the officer or servant under the provisions of any such Act.
This Amendment restricts any overreaching employé who may seek to transfer his services from one authority in one capacity to another authority in another capacity. He is to be no better off than if he had remained under the original authority and the superannuation will be entirely based upon his salary in that respect. The Amendment is designed in the interests of the ratepayer and makes the position perfectly clear and prevents undue claims being made by persons coming on to the super-annuation fund in a new capacity.

Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Superannuation, fund.)

(1) The local authority shall establish and administer a superannuation fund to which shall be carried and credited in each year—
(e) such amount as may be certified by an actuary as soon as may he after the adoption of this Act, as necessary in order that the superannuation fund may he solvent, to he calculated so as to cast upon the local authority, so far as may be, an equal annual charge for a period not exceeding forty years from the commencement of this Act.
(2) The equivalent contribution shall be made out of the same rates and revenues as those upon which the salaries or wages from which the said amounts so deducted are charged.

Amendments made:

In Sub-section (1, e), leave out the words "from the commencement of this
Act" and insert instead thereof the words "the appointed day."

In Sub-section (2), after the word contribution "["the equivalent contribution "], insert the words "and the equal annual charge."—[Sir H. Nield.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Notice of provisions of Act to officers and servants.)

(1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, a copy of this Act shall be sent or delivered to each officer or servant to whom the Act;applies.
(2) A copy of this Act shall, as soon as may be after his appointment, be sent or delivered to every officer or servant who may he appointed subsequently to the appointed day.

Amendment made:

Leave out the Clause.—[Sir A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 24.— (Gratuities.)

The local authority may grant to any officer or servant who is not entitled to a superannuation allowance under this Act, on his retiring from service, such gratuity as the local authority may by special resolution determine, not exceeding a sum equal to twice the amount of the salary or wages of such officer or servant during the year which immediately precedes his retirement:
Provided that any gratuity granted under this Section shall not be paid out of the superannuation fund, but shall be chargeable upon the same rates and revenues as those upon which the salary or wages of the officer or servant to whom the gratuity is granted are charged.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, at the beginning of the Clause, to insert a new Sub-section—
(1) The local authority may in any case in which an officer or servant is permanently incapacitated by an injury sustained by him in the actual discharge of his duty and without his own default, and specifically attributable to the nature of his duty grant to such officer or servant, subject to such conditions as they may think fit, such gratuity either by way of a lump sum or periodical payments as they may consider reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including any statutory right to compensation or any allowance or gratuity under this Act, so however that these sums received by him shall not exceed in all the amount of any allowance or gratuity to which he would have been entitled if lie had already attained the age of sixty-five at the date when he became incapacitated.
This Amendment is for the purpose of preventing unnecessary expense.

Mr. MYERS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: It is difficult to follow these Amendments and to know exactly what they mean. I understand this provides that where a servant is incapacitated by injury, the local authority may give him certain payments. Surely under the Workmen's Compensation Acts that officer or servant would receive compensation.

Sir H. NIELD: The Compensation Acts are limited to a certain class of people. There are many men under local authorities who would not be within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. This is purely optional; it saves the authorities fund in the end, and also saves superannuation.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Scheme to be submitted where this Act adopted by local authority having a superannuation fund in operation.)

If this Act or any of the provisions of this Act be adopted by a local authority having an existing superannuation fund or scheme in operation, such local authority shall prepare a scheme for substituting for such superannuation fund or scheme a superannuation fund under the provisions of this Act and providing for (among other things) the application, transfer, or disposal of any then existing funds, securities, or policies of insurance or the proceeds thereof, and for adequately protecting the rights and interests of the various parties interested in such existing superannuation fund or scheme, including any members of such existing fund or scheme not assenting to the adoption of this Act or of any of the provisions of this Act.
A scheme under this Section shall be submitted by the local authority to the Minister of Health for his approval, and this Act shall not become operative in the case of such local authority until such scheme, with or without modification, shall have been approved by the Minister of Health.

Amendments made:

Leave out the words "or any of the provisions of this Act" ["If this Act or any of the provisions of this Act be adopted"].

Leave out the words "not assenting to the adoption of this Act or of any of the provisions of this Act."—[Sir H. Nield.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Provisions as to existing clerks of the peace.)

Any existing clerk of the peace shall be entitled by notice in writing to the local authority within six months from this Act applying to him to elect to continue to hold
his office upon the same terms as he held the same immediately before the passing of this Act.

Sir A. MOND: I beg to move to leave out the words "Any existing," and to insert instead thereof the words
This Act shall apply in the case of a.
The object of this, with the next Amendment in my name, is to ensure that clerks and deputy-clerks of the peace in whole-time employment shall, for the purposes of the Act, be regarded as employees of county councils and so be eligible for the superannuation scheme of the county councils.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Leave out the words
shall be entitled by notice in writing to the local authority within six months from this Act applying to him to elect to continue to hold his office upon the same terms as he held the same immediately before the passing of this Act.

and insert instead thereof the words
or deputy clerk of the peace, and to any person in the whole-time employment of a clerk of the peace for the purposes of his office, as though such clerk, deputy clerk, or person were in the service of the county council.

Provided that

(a) any clerk of the peace holding office upon the appointed day shall be entitled by notice in writing to the county council within six months from the appointed day to elect to continue to hold office upon the same terms as he held immediately before the appointed day; and
(b) the county council may, in designating any person employed as aforesaid by a clerk of the peace, make such conditions with regard to increases of salary after the appointed day and the date of retirement of such persons as they may think fit."—[Sir.A. Mond.]

CLAUSE 30.—(Saving for Superannuation (Metropolis) Act.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or the adoption of this Act by any local authority, the Superannuation (Metropolis) Act, 1866, shall continue to apply and have effect in the case of officers or servants in the service on the appointed day of any local authority to which the said Act of 1866 applies, and any such officer or servant shall not be deemed to be an officer or servant for the purposes of the Act:
Provided that at any time within six months after the appointed day such officer may signify in writing to the clerk to such local authority his desire to become an officer
or servant for the purposes of this Act, and thereupon the said Act of 1866 shall cease to apply in the case of such officer or servant as from the appointed day, and such officer or servant shall be deemed to be and to have been an officer or servant for the purposes of this Act,

Amendment made: Leave out the words "to the clerk."[Sir B. Nield.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Application.)

(2) This Act, in its application to Scotland, shall be subject to the following provisions:

(a) References to the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, shall be construed as references to the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Act, 1919; and
(b)"Local authority" means any county council, town council, parish council, or other authority whatsoever having power to levy an assessment or rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes and which is leviable on lands and heritages and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other document requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a rate, and includes any combination of local authorities under this Act:
Provided that this Act shall not apply to any such local authority or combination of local authorities which at the time when this Act was adopted employed less than fifty officers or servants proposed to be designated as officers or servants for the purpose of this Act;
(c) References to the Arbitration Act, 1889, shall not apply.

Mr. C. D. MURRAY: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (a).

This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. C. D. MURRAY: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, a), to leave out the words
an assessment or rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes and which is leviable on lands and heritages and includes any sum which, though obtained in the first instance by a precept, certificate, or other document requiring payment from some authority or officer, is or can be ultimately raised out of a rate,
and to insert instead thereof the words
or to borrow on the security of a rate.
Otherwise the district control board would not be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2, c), leave out the words
any such local authority or combination of local authorities which at the time when this Act was adopted employed less than fifty,
and insert instead thereof the words
a local authority, other than a county, town, or parish council or an education authority or a district board of control or a combination of such authorities employing fifty or more.
At the end of Sub-section (2, c), insert the words
Rate' means an assessment or rate the proceeds of which are applicable to public local purposes and which is leviable on lands and heritages, and includes any sum which though obtained in the first instance by a precept certificate or document requiring payment from some authority or officer is, or can he, ultimately raised out of a rate;
(d) This Act shall not apply to any county or town clerk who shall be fifty-five years of age or more at the appointed day if within six months after such appointed day he gives notice in writing to the council of his desire." —[Mr. C. D. Murray.]

Mr. C. D. MURRAY: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (2, d), to insert the words "Section twenty-nine of this Act and."
This is in consequence of Clause 29 having been altered. We are agreed that in Scotland clerks of the peace and clerks of county councils are in a different position, and this Amendment elides the application of Clause 29.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."—[Sir H. Nield.]

Sir F. BANBURY: I have been only too willing to allow my hon. and learned Friend to get his Report stage through without any of us knowing what was being done in order that we might take the Third Reading next Friday, when we can have some discussion on it. It is quite clear that on a very important Bill of this kind it is absolutely necessary that we should have some short interval during which we might look at the Bill and understand it in its final form.

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next (30th June).

BREAD ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

As amended (in, the Standing Committee) considered, read the Third time, and passed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY') ACTS, 1882 TO 1919.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burgh of Crieff, in the county of Perth, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burgh of Kirkintilloch, and parts of the parish of Kirkintilloch, in the county of Dumbarton, and parts of the parish of Cadder, in the county of Lanark, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919; and confirmed by the. Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parishes of Anlaby, North Ferriby, Melton, Welton, Wauldby, Swanland, Willerby, Haltemprice, Kirkella, and Westella, in the rural district of Sculcoats, in the East Riding of the country of York, and for the amendement of the Kingston-upon-Hull Electric Lighting Act and Orders, 1890 to 1915, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919, and con-
firmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electircity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burghs of Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Kilwinning, Stewarton, and Cumnock, the parishes of Beith, Dunlop, and Stewarton, and portions of the parishes of Ardrossan, West Kilbride, Dalry, Kilbirnie, Muirkirk, Auchinleck, Stair, Old Cumnock, Ochiltree, coylton, Tarbolton, Monkton and Prestwick, Stevenston, Irvine, Kilwinning, Dreghorn, Fenwick, Loudoun, Galston, Sorn, Mauchline, Craigie, and Symington, all in the County of Ayr, which was presented on the 17th day of May, 1922, be approved."—[Mr. Neal.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCEACT (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider which, if any, of the Acts of Parliament now included in the Schedules to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act can with advantage be made permanent, or be enacted for periods longer than those prescribed by that Act."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Committee nominated of Mr. Better-ton, Major Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Cautley, Brigadier-General Cockerill, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Hinds, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Mr. Allen Parkinson, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Rendall, Major-General Seely, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Gershom Stewart, Mr. Wallace, and Major Mackenzie Wood.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Ordered, "That Five be the quorum —(Colonel Gibbs.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Six minutes after Four o'Clock till Monday (26th June).